# P. RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU & OTHERS v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 365
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-12-09
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-v-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-others-7046
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Articles 16, 32 and 311, Government servantl cone·
pu/sory retirement, whether violates Art. 16-Ban on re-empluyment by semi·
Government Institutions, whether within the scope of Art. 32-Availabi/iry ·of
alternative remedy.
On the completion of their 25 years of qualifying service, the appellants were
compulsorily retired in public interest, and were to receive 3 months salary in
lieu of notice.
Thereafter, the respondent Government passed a general order
forbidding re-employment of compulsorily retired persons in semi-Governmellt
institutions. The appellants filed writ petitions under Ar•. 32 of the Constitution
. challenging the compulsory retirement orders as violative of Art. 16 and the
ban on such re-employment as a stigma under Art. 311.
Disntissing the petitions, the Court,
A
B
c
HELD : ( 1) Article 16 does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rulea
for compulsory retirement.
The provision for compulsory retirement in public
interest after the completion of a certain period of qualifying service or attainD
ment of a certain age, applies to all Government servants and as such it is not
open to challenge either under Art. 14 or under Art. 16, and the individual
application of the order in a given case cannot offend Art. 16.
[367-D-H]
T. C. Shivacharana Singh. v. State of Mysore A.l.R. 1965 S.C. 280, applied.
Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha, & Anr. [1971] 1 S.C.R. 791; Tara Singh
etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [197S] 3 S.C.R. 1002,
and B.
Narayana
Murthy & Or:r. v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc. [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 741, referE
red to.
(2) The Government order forbidding
re-appointment
of
compulsorily
retired persons as a stigma within the meaning of Article 311 is not an infringement of fundamental rights, and the enforcement of violation of Article 311
does not come within the scope of Article 32. The ban is not apinst anyone
individually and has a reasonable basis and some relation to the suitability for
employment or appointment to an office. [367 A-B, m-A::JJ]
Krishna Chander Nayar v. Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation & Ors.
[1962] 3 S.C.R. 187; Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. [1955] 1 S.C.R.
26;
Tata
·Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 751 and Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. The
State of Madhya Bharat & Anr. [1964] 6 S.C.R. 857, referred to.
F
{3) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has by an administrative
order
<:onstituted a review committee for each department to review orders of retiremeat ill public intere3t and to revoke ud modify the same, if necessary. The
G
petitioners made representations to the reYiew comntittee, and are not justified
in applying to this Court. [370A-B]
·
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 97 of 1976.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
S. Ramchandra Rao and B. Kanta Rao for the appellants in W.P.
~~~
H
S. Ramachandra ·Rao and A. Subba Rao, for the appellants in
W. P. No. 114/76.
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
A
,
N~ren De, 4ttorney General, P. P. Rao, Sr. Advocate and T. V. S.
Naraszmhacharz, for the respondents in W.P. No. 97176.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. Parmeshwara Rao, and G. Narayana Rao, for respondents in
W.P. No. 114/76.
·

## Text

365
P. RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU & OTHERS
v.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS
December 9, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J. AND M. H. BEG, J.]
Constitution of India, Articles 16, 32 and 311, Government servantl cone·
pu/sory retirement, whether violates Art. 16-Ban on re-empluyment by semi·
Government Institutions, whether within the scope of Art. 32-Availabi/iry ·of
alternative remedy.
On the completion of their 25 years of qualifying service, the appellants were
compulsorily retired in public interest, and were to receive 3 months salary in
lieu of notice.
Thereafter, the respondent Government passed a general order
forbidding re-employment of compulsorily retired persons in semi-Governmellt
institutions. The appellants filed writ petitions under Ar•. 32 of the Constitution
. challenging the compulsory retirement orders as violative of Art. 16 and the
ban on such re-employment as a stigma under Art. 311.
Disntissing the petitions, the Court,
A
B
c
HELD : ( 1) Article 16 does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rulea
for compulsory retirement.
The provision for compulsory retirement in public
interest after the completion of a certain period of qualifying service or attainD
ment of a certain age, applies to all Government servants and as such it is not
open to challenge either under Art. 14 or under Art. 16, and the individual
application of the order in a given case cannot offend Art. 16.
[367-D-H]
T. C. Shivacharana Singh. v. State of Mysore A.l.R. 1965 S.C. 280, applied.
Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha, & Anr. [1971] 1 S.C.R. 791; Tara Singh
etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [197S] 3 S.C.R. 1002,
and B.
Narayana
Murthy & Or:r. v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc. [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 741, referE
red to.
(2) The Government order forbidding
re-appointment
of
compulsorily
retired persons as a stigma within the meaning of Article 311 is not an infringement of fundamental rights, and the enforcement of violation of Article 311
does not come within the scope of Article 32. The ban is not apinst anyone
individually and has a reasonable basis and some relation to the suitability for
employment or appointment to an office. [367 A-B, m-A::JJ]
Krishna Chander Nayar v. Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation & Ors.
[1962] 3 S.C.R. 187; Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. [1955] 1 S.C.R.
26;
Tata
·Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 751 and Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. The
State of Madhya Bharat & Anr. [1964] 6 S.C.R. 857, referred to.
F
{3) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has by an administrative
order
<:onstituted a review committee for each department to review orders of retiremeat ill public intere3t and to revoke ud modify the same, if necessary. The
G
petitioners made representations to the reYiew comntittee, and are not justified
in applying to this Court. [370A-B]
·
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 97 of 1976.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
S. Ramchandra Rao and B. Kanta Rao for the appellants in W.P.
~~~
H
S. Ramachandra ·Rao and A. Subba Rao, for the appellants in
W. P. No. 114/76.
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
A
,
N~ren De, 4ttorney General, P. P. Rao, Sr. Advocate and T. V. S.
Naraszmhacharz, for the respondents in W.P. No. 97176.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. Parmeshwara Rao, and G. Narayana Rao, for respondents in
W.P. No. 114/76.
·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. ~~e writ petitions. ~hallenge the compulsory retirement of the petitioners.
The petitioners were retired compulsorily
under order dated 23 September, 1975.
The order dated 23 September 1975 in the case of the first
petitioner in writ petition No. 97 of 1976 may be referred to as
typical of orders in the case of other petitioners.
This order state<l
first that the said first petitioner completed 25 years of qualifyin o
11ervice on 24th July, 1975.
The order next stated that the Com~
missioner of Police being the authority to make a substantive appointment to the post of Inspector of Police is of opinion that it is in
public interest to retire the persons mentioned in the order.
The order thereafter states that in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) /sub-rule 2(A)
read
with
Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of rule 3
of
the Andhra Pradesh
Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961/sub-rule (1) of rule 2/rule 3 read
with sub-rule ( 1) of rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Government
Servants' Premature Retirement Rules, 1975, the Commissioner of
Police directs that the person mentioned in the order shall retire in
public interest from service with effect from the date of service of
the order and that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount
of pay and allowances for 3 months in lieu of notice calculated at
the same rate at which he was drawing immediately before the date
on which the order is served on him.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed a general order dated
28 November, 1975. In that
Government order it
is st>ated that
in several Government orders recited therein, orders for the premature
retirement of the Government servants in public interest had been
issued in those cases after giving 3 months previous notice in writing or after giving 3 months salary in lieu of such notice.
The
28 November, 1975 order next states that an instance came to the
notice of the Government that a Government servant after compulsory retirement as per orders mentioned above was re-appointed in
a cooperative institution as
exec1;1tive
offi~er.
Though
t~e . reappointment of the incumbent was m the Senu-Government lnstitut10n,
his re-appointment was state<l .to be. ~egular and
co~trary. to the
intention of the Government m retmng corrupt and meffic1ent persons.
The Government order directed that all the Departments of the
Secretariat, all Heads of Department, and all CoJ.lectors etc., sho~d
ensure that on no account persons who are retrred premat~ely m
pursuance of orders issued by the Government should 1:Je re-instated
or re-appointed in any Semi-Government or Quasi-Government
Institutions.
P. RADHAKRISHNA V. ANDHRA PRADESH (Ray, C.J.)
367
The petitioners challenged the compulsory retirement orders as
violation of Article 16. The petitioners also challenged the Government order forbidding re-appointment of compulsorily retired persons
in Semi-Government or Quasi-Government Institutions as a
stigma
within the meaning o~ Article 311.
At the outset it should be stated that enforcement of violation
of Article 311 does not come within the scope of Article 32.
The
challenge to the Government order forbidding re-appointment of
compulsorily retired persons as a stigma within the meaning of Article
311 is, therefore, not an infringement CJi. fundamental rights.
The petitioners challenged the orders of compulsory retirement
as an infraction of Article 16. It is not known how the petitioners
have been discriminated against other persons because no such person is impleaded as a respondent and there are no allegations to' that
effect.
During the subsistence of the Presidential Order issued
under
Article 359(1) it is not competent to invoke Article 14 for enforcement of any fundamental rights.
Articles 14 and 16 are
to
a
certain extent overlapping in regard t.o rights of equality.
Equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment is not violited by provisions for compulsory retirement of
G<Wernment servants in public interest after the completion
of a
certain period of qualifying service or attainment of a certain age.
This Court has consistently taken the view that compulsory retirement
does not involve any civil consequences.
See Union of India
v.
Col. l. N. Sinha and Another(') and Tara Singh etc. v. State of
R«jasthan and Ors.(')
A writ petition under Article 32 can lie only for infringement of
fundamental
rights.
See
B. Narayana Murthy and Ors. etc.
v.
State of Andhra Pradesh etc.(3)
The general order for compulsory
retirement is applicable to all employees. The individual application
of the order in a given case cannot offend Article 16. It cannot be
suggested that an order for compulsory retirement in the case of one
person is denial of equality of opportunity relating to employment
because another person in employment has not been compulsorily
retired.
Article 16 does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules
for compulsory retirement.
A question arose in T. C. Shivacharana
Singh v. State of Mysore (4) whether a rule providing for compulsory
premature retirement from Government service violates Article 16.
c
D
E
G
This Court said that the law in relation to the validity of rulei
permitting compulsory premature retirement from Government serH
(I) (1971] 1 S.C.R. 791.
(3) (1971] Supp S.C.R. 741.
(2) (1975] 3 S.C.R. 1002.
(4) A.LR. 1965 S.C. 280.
A
B
.D
E
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 2 S.C.R.
vice is well-settled by prior decision of this Court which does not
require to be reconsidered. The ratio is that the provision for compulsory retirement in public interest applies to all Government servants and as such it is not open to challenge either under Article
14 or under Article 16.
In. Shya'!l Lal v. State of U.P. (') the appellant had been compulsorily retrred. The order was challenged as violating Article 311.
This Court held that there is no stigma involved iii compulsory
retirement.
Compulsory retirement does not amount to a dismissal
or removal and, thereore, it is not within the vice of Article 311.
One of the petitioners, namely, the first in writ petition No. 97
of 1976, challenged the order of compulsory retirement on the ground
that he did not complete 25 years of service. He alleged that be
was appointed on 10 September, 1952 and, therefore, the order of
compulsory retirement dated 23 September, 1975 is bad. The State
on the other band contends &at the correct date of appointment
of the first petitioner is 25 July, 1950. In writ petitions the Court
does not go into disputed questions of fact, like date of appointment
as in the present case.
In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxe~ d: A.nr. (2)
this Court said . that the exercise of jurisdiction in writ matters is not
desirable if facts have to be found on evidence.
This Court
bas
also said that there may be exceptions.
One such exception is when
action is taken under an invalid law or arbitrarily without the sanction of law.
In the present case there is no aspect
of
either
kind. ·
Further it has to be observed that in the present writ petitions
several petitioners have combined as petitioners.
Their causes of
action are separate and independent.
Eacla is allegi:d to be
an
~
instance of individual assertion of constitutional right in regard to
F
facts and circumstances of each case.
Where several petitioners
combine for alleged violation of their rights, it is difficult for court
~
to go into each and every individual case.
In the present case the
affidavit evidence on behalf of the State is preferred and, therefore,
the first petitioner cannot agitate the question of disputed date of
appointment.
'II
In Krishna Chandra Nayar v. Chairman, Central Tractor Organization and Others(B) this Court considered the imposition oJ. a ban
against one man, namely, the petitioner in that case from bemg ever
taken into Government service.
He was a temporary servant and
his services were terminated by giving him pay and allowances in
lieu of notice for one month. This Court found that case to be one
of arbitmry imposition of ban against the employment or appointment
of one individual to an office.
(1) [1955] l S.C.R. 26.
(3) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 187.
(2) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 751.
P. RADHAKRISHNA V. ANDHRA PRADESH (Ray, C.J.)
389
Krishna Chander's case (supra) is of no aid to the petitioners in
A
the present case.
The half is not challenged
here.
In
Krishna ·
Chander's cas_e (supra) the ban was challenged as an arbitrary act
against one individual. In the present case the ban is not against
anyone individually but it is not to employ in Quasi-Government
service or ·Semi-Government service, persons who are compulsorily
retired from Government service.
The ban has a reasonable basis
and has some relation to the suitability for employment or appointB
ment t-0 an office.
When compulsory retirement is made in public
interest it will be an exercise in futility if Government
~ervanl'.i
who are compulsorily retired are again employed in Government
service or Semi-Government service or Qμasi-Government service.
The petitionen1 challenged the orders for compulsory retirement
also on the ground that reference to so many rules was made and,
therefore, it was not possible for the petitioners to know under what
provision the orders for compulsory retirement had been made. It
is not open to the petitioners to challenge the orders on that ground.
The orders specifically mention that compulsory retirement is Iil.ado
in public interest.
The State affidavit evidence is that petitioners
No. 4 and 5 in ~t petition No. 97 of 1976 are governed by
Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations and the rest of the petitioner1>
are governed by Andhra Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961.
Rule 292 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations and sub-rule
(2) (a) of rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules,
1961 are similar.
Both the rules confer power on the authority to
require Government servant to retire in the public
interest
from
t1ervice on the date on which he completes 25 yean of qualifying
~ervice or attains 50_years of age. Rule 2(1) of the Andhra Pradesh
Government Servants' Premature Retirement Rules, 1975
is
also
worded in similar language.
The wording of the
rules
relating
to retirement in public interest is identical in all the three sets of
rules mentioned above.
The mere fact that three different rules were mentioned in the
.impugued orders without scoring out the rules which are not applicable to a petitioner in one case cannot be any grievance for the
reason that in each case the relevant rule is identically worded. The
<:Jmission on the part of the officers competent to retire the petitioners
in not scoring out the rules which are inapplicable to a particular
individual does not render the order bad.
The reason is that one
<:Jf the rules is applicable to him and the omission to strike out the
rules which are not applicable will not in any manner affect the .
applicability of the rule mentioned.
Further this Court has taken
the view that a wrong reference to power will not vitiate any action
"if it can be justified under some other power under which the Government can lawfully do the act.
See Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v.
The State of Madhya Bharat and Anothert'). l:n the present case the
-valid rule is mentioned in each case.
(l) (1964] 6 S.C.R. 857.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 2 S.C.R.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh bas by an administrative
order constituted a review committee for each department to review
orders of retirement in public interest and to revoke and modify the
same, if necessary.
The petitioners made representations to the review
committee.
The petitioners yet choose to come to this court.
The
petitioners are not justified in applying to this court.
The petitioners obtained rules in these two cases
during
the
vacation.
A similar matter came before this Court on 29 April,.
1976 and this Court did not issue any rule. If the attention of this.
Court had been drawn to that order, perhaps no rule would have·
been issued in these matters.
·
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975 confers power on the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction with respect to
appointment, allotment or promotion and other conditions of service·
of such persons. It is open to a person who complains about an
order of compulsory retirement to approach the Tribunal in a given,
case.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.
M.R.
Petitions dismissed.