# THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. MADAN MOHAN NAGAR

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 333
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-01-05
- **Case number:** CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 997 of 1965
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-madan-mohan-nagar-3958
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
MADAN MOHAN NAGAR
January 5, 1967
B
(K. SUBBA RAO C. J., J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI
c
D
E
F
G
H
AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM JJ.]
Civil S?rvice-Officer retired stating "outlived his service"-Whether
casts a stignia, and a1nounts to puntsl11ne11t.
The respondent was compulsorily retired from service under article
465A, note (I) of the U.P. Civil Service Regulation, after be had completed more than 25 years of qualifying service. The order of retirement
stated that the respondent "haJ outlived hh utility". The responden~
challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court quashed the
order.
In appeal to this Court. the appellant contende~ that the reason
that the respondent bad outlived bis utility did not show that the order
of compulsory retirement amounted to an ordc·r of dismissal or removal
because in every case of compulsory retirement it was implied that the
person had outlived his usefulness.
HELD : There was no force in the contention.
The test to he applied is : coes the order of compulsory retirement
cast an aspersion or attach a stigma to the officer when it purports to
retire him compulsorily. In the present case the order did cast a stigma
on the respondent. [336 G]
Jagdish Mitter v. U11io11 of India A.I.R. [1964] S.C. 449. followed
Two tests are derived from Shayam Lal's case : the first is whether
the action is by way of punishment and to find that out it is necessary
that a charge or imputation against the officer is made the copdition of
the exercise of the power; the second is whether by compulsory retirement the officer is losing the benefit he bas already earned as be does by
dismissal or removal. If the first test is applied in this case it is quite
clear that the charge or imputation "that the respondent had outlived bis
utility" was made the. condition of the exercise oi the power. [338 E]
Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1965) I S.C.R. 26 followed.
Abdul Ahad v. The Inspector General of Po/ic.c, U.P. A.I.R. (1965)
All. 142. overruled.
CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 997 of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated.
July 25, 1963 oftheAllahabadHigh Courtin Special Appeal No. 431
of 1962.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, C. B. Agarwa/a and 0. P. Rana,.
for the appellant.
J.P. Goyal and B. P. Jha, for the respondent.
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967) 2 S.C.R.

## Text

A
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
MADAN MOHAN NAGAR
January 5, 1967
B
(K. SUBBA RAO C. J., J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI
c
D
E
F
G
H
AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM JJ.]
Civil S?rvice-Officer retired stating "outlived his service"-Whether
casts a stignia, and a1nounts to puntsl11ne11t.
The respondent was compulsorily retired from service under article
465A, note (I) of the U.P. Civil Service Regulation, after be had completed more than 25 years of qualifying service. The order of retirement
stated that the respondent "haJ outlived hh utility". The responden~
challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court quashed the
order.
In appeal to this Court. the appellant contende~ that the reason
that the respondent bad outlived bis utility did not show that the order
of compulsory retirement amounted to an ordc·r of dismissal or removal
because in every case of compulsory retirement it was implied that the
person had outlived his usefulness.
HELD : There was no force in the contention.
The test to he applied is : coes the order of compulsory retirement
cast an aspersion or attach a stigma to the officer when it purports to
retire him compulsorily. In the present case the order did cast a stigma
on the respondent. [336 G]
Jagdish Mitter v. U11io11 of India A.I.R. [1964] S.C. 449. followed
Two tests are derived from Shayam Lal's case : the first is whether
the action is by way of punishment and to find that out it is necessary
that a charge or imputation against the officer is made the copdition of
the exercise of the power; the second is whether by compulsory retirement the officer is losing the benefit he bas already earned as be does by
dismissal or removal. If the first test is applied in this case it is quite
clear that the charge or imputation "that the respondent had outlived bis
utility" was made the. condition of the exercise oi the power. [338 E]
Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1965) I S.C.R. 26 followed.
Abdul Ahad v. The Inspector General of Po/ic.c, U.P. A.I.R. (1965)
All. 142. overruled.
CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 997 of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated.
July 25, 1963 oftheAllahabadHigh Courtin Special Appeal No. 431
of 1962.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, C. B. Agarwa/a and 0. P. Rana,.
for the appellant.
J.P. Goyal and B. P. Jha, for the respondent.
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967) 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J. The respondent, Shri Madan Mohan Nagar, filed a
Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for
·quashing the order of compulsory retirement dated July 28, 1960,
passed against him. The order of compulsory retirement was in the
following terms:
"I am directed to say that the Governor has been
pleased to order in the public interest under Article 465A
and Note(!) thereof of the Civil Service Regulations, the
compulsory retirement with effect from September I, 1960 ·
of Sri Madan Mohan Nagar, Director State Museum
Luck~ow who completed 52 years of age on July
1, 1960, and 2g years ar.d 3 months of qualifying service
on 31-5-1960 as he has outlived his utility."
The learned Single Judge who heard the petition quashed the
order on the ground that "Rule 465 of the Civil Service Regulations
as amendeo hy the U .P. Go.vernment while providing a criterion for
1he guidance of Government when inflicting compulsory retirement
on a government servant never .heless violates the guarantee of
equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment under
Article 16(1 )" of the Constitution. He further held that the order
i!•? ting compulsory retirement on the petitioner was invalid
because it was passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
The State appealed and the Division Bench on appeal upheld
the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the
order of compulsory retirement was passed in violation of the
provisions
of art. 311 of the Constitution and was, therefore.
ultra 1·ires.
The State having obtained special leave, the appeal
is now before us.
Before we deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant, we may give a few facts and set out Article 465(A) and
Note(!) thereof of the Civil Service Regulation, as amended by the
Government of Uttar Pradesh. The facts, in brief, are that the
respondent was first appointea in 1931 on one year's probation
to the post of Custodian, Sarnath Museum, Banaras, under the
Archaeological Department of the Government of India. In l'.139,
he was posted to Mathura Museum as Curator, and he was appointed
substantively to this post from January 5. 1941.
Later, he was
appointed on the recommendation of the Provincial Public Service
Commission as Curator of the State Museum, Lucknow, on a scale
of pay Rs. 250/- to Rs. 850/-. The post of Curator was upgraded to
the po>t of Director, State Museum, Lucknow, in the U.P. Educational Service, Senior Scale, and the respondent was appointed to it.
Thereafter the respondent continued in service as Director of State
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
• •
(
( .'
A
D
'
H
U. P •. STATE v. M. M. NAGAR (Sikri, /.)
335
Museum,
Lucknow,
until he was compulsorily retired by the
order of the Government, dated JuJy.28, 1960, which has already
been set out above. It is common ground that no enquiry as
contemplated by Art. 311(2) was held.
The relevant part of Article 465A of the Civil Ser.vice Regulation is in the following terms:
"Government retains the right to retire any Government servant after he has completed 25 years qualifying
service without giving any reasons, and no claim to special
compensation on this account shall be entertained.
This right shall only be exercised by Government in the
Administrative Department when it is in the public interest
to dispense with the services of Government servant who
has outlived his usefulness."
This learned Solicitor General, who appears on behalf of the
appellant has urged that the fact that the impugned order of compulso.y retirement states the reason for compulsory retirement,
namely, that the respondent had outlived his utility, does not lead
to the conclusion that the order amounts to dismissal or removal
because in every case of compulsory retirement it is implied that the
person who is compulsorily retired had outlived his usefulness.
He refers to Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh('} and says that
in that case it was implied that Shyam Lal was not fit to be retained
in service. We are unable to read Shyam Lat's case(') in that
manner because the Court expressly said at p. 41, as follows:
"It is true that this power of compulsory retirement
may be used when the au.thority exercising this power cannot
substantiate the nilsconduct which may be the real cause
· for taking the action but what is important to note
is that the directions in the last sentence in Note 1 to
article 465-A make it abundantly clear that an imputation
or charge is not in terms made a condition for
the exercise of the pow~r. In other words, a compulsory
retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or
incapacity."
In the present case there is not only no question of implication
but a clear statement appears on the face of the order that the repondent had crutlived his utility; in other words, it is stated that he
was incapacitated from holding the post of Director, State Museum,
Lucknow. The order clearly attaches a stigma to him and any
person who reads the order would immediately <A>nsider that there
is something wrong with him or his capacity to work.
In our opinion this case is covered by the principle applied in
Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India (2). It is true that that was a
case of a temporary servant, but that does not matter. The order
(l) (19551 I S. C. R!26.
(2) A. I. R. 1964 S.C.449·
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1967] 2 S.C.R.
in that case reads as follows:
"Shri Jagdish Mitter, a temporary 2nd Division Clerk
of this office !laving heen found undesirable to be retained
in Government service is hereby served with a month's
notice of discharge with effect from November I, 1949."
Gajcnderagadkar, J., as he
then was,
speaking for the
Court, said:
"No doubt the order purports to be one of discharge
and· as such can be referred to the power of the authority
to terminate the temporary appointment with one month's
notice. But it seems to us that when the order refers to
the fact that the appellant was found undesirable to be
retained in government service, it expressly casts a stigma
on the appellant and in that sense must be held to be an
order of dismissal and not a mere order of discharge."
Later, he observed:
"It seems that anyone who reads the order in a reasonable way, would naturally conclude that the appc.lant
was found to be undesirable, and that must necessarily
impc>rt an element of punishment which is the basis of
the order and is its integral part. When an authority wants
to terminate the services of a temporary servant, it can
pass a simple order of discharge without casting any aspersion
against the temporary servant or attaching any
stigma to his character. As soon as it is shown that the
order purports to cast an aspersion on the
temporary
servant, it would be idle to suggest that the order is a simple
order of discharge. The test in such cases must be: docs the
order cast aspersion or attach stigma to the officer when it
purports to discharge him? If the answer to this question
is in the affirmative, then notwithstanding the form of
the order. the termination of service must be held, in substance, to amount to dismissal.,.
It seems to us that the same test must apply in the case of
compulsory retirement, namely:
docs the order of compulsory
retirement cast an aspersion or attach a stigma to the officer when
it purports to retire him compulsorily? In '.he present case there
is no doubt that the order does cast a stigma on the respondent.
Mr. Gupte relies on T. G. Shil'ac/zarana Singh 1•. State of
Mysore(').
But this case docs not assist him because it does not
appear that the order in that case contained any stigma, and under
Ruic 285
of the Mysore Civil Service Ruic,, 1958, retirement
(I} A.l.R. 1965 S. C. 280.
A
B
c
D
'
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
U. P. STATE v. M. M. NAGAR (Sikri, /.)
337
could be effected if it was considered necessary in the public interest.
There was no question of requiring that there should be a finding
that the government officer had outlived his utility.
In Ram Parshad v. State of Punjab( ) no such question appears
to have been argued.
In para 32 of the judgment Satyanarayana
Raju, J., while considering the validity of Rule 27 of the Staff
Rules, reproduced an extract from the judgment of this Court in
Moti Ram Deka v. N. E. Frontier Railway(2). We will presently
~onsider the effect of the decision in Deka's case.
In Deka' s case(2) Moti Ram Deka, who was a peon employed
by the North East Frontier Railway, challenged the order of
termination of his services under Rule 148 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Code on the ground that the said Rule was invalid.
There were some other appellants before the Court who challenged
the validity of Rule 149 of the Railway Establishment Code. The
question posed for decision by Gajendragadkar, J., at page 699
was: if the service of a permanent civil servant is terminated otherwise than by operation of the rule of superannuation, or the rule of
t:ompulsory retirement, does such termination amount to removal
under Art. 311 (2) or not? The Court was thus not concerned
with the question of compulsory retirement under a rule similar to
Rule 465A, note (I), of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service Regulation,
but it reviewed some cases dealing with compulsory retirement.
Subba Rao J., as he then was, who delivered a concurring judgment
also reviewed the cases, but he pereferred to follow the principle
laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India ('), in respect
of permanent government servants in preference to that accepted in
Shyam Lal' s case(') and the subsequent decisions following it_
But it is not necessary for us to resolve the conflict, if any, which
exists between Dhingra's case(') and Shyam Lal's case(•) because
here we have an order which on the face of it casts a stigma on the
respondent. It is true, as pointed out by Subba Rao J., that in
Doshi's case State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi('} Rule
165-A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules laid down that the
right of compulsory retirement will not be exercised except when
it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of a
Government servant such as on account of inefficiency or dishonesty, but in Doshi' s case it does not appear that the order
contained any aspersion that Doshi was inefficient or suffered from
some other defect. What was challenged in that case was
the
validity of Rule 165-A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, and it
was held that it did not violate art. 311(2) of the Constitution.
(1) A.l.R. 1966 S.C. 1607 : [1966] 3 S. C.R. 486
(3) [1958] S.C.R. 828
(5) [1958] S.C.R. 571.
(2) [1964] S S.C.R. 683.
(4) [1955) 1 S.C.R. 26
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1967] 2 S.C.R.
Similarly, in Balakotaih v. The Union of India(') in Rule 3
of the Railway Services
(Safeguarding of National Security)
Rules, 1949,
dealing with compulsory retirement, the proviso
provided that "a member of the Railway Service shall not be retired
or have his service so tenninated unlt'Ss the competent authority
is satisfied that his retention in public sericc
is
prcjudical to
national security, and unles,, where the competent authority is the
Head of a Department, the prior approval of the Governor-General
has been obtained." In this case also it does not appear that the
order terminating the services contained any stigma on the public
servant concerned.
In. Da/ip Singh v. State of Punjab(2) the order read as
follows:
"His Highness the Rajpramukh is pleased to. retire
from service Sardar Dalip Singh,
Inspector General of
Police, Pepsu (on leave) for administrative reasons with
effect from the 18th August 1950."
It was held that the order did not amount to dismissal or
removal
from service within the meaning of art. 311(2) ofthe
Constitution. The Court derived two tests from Sh yam IA/' s case(')
and formulated them as follows: the first is whether the action is by
way of punishment and to find that out the Court said that it was
necessary that a charge or imputation against the officer is made
the condition of the exercise of the power; the second is whet'ier by
compulsory retirement the officer is losing the benefit he has already
earned as he does by dismissal or removal. If the first test is applied
in this case it is quite clear that the charge or imputation "that the
respondent had outlived his utility" was made the condition of the
exercise of the power.
The learned Solicitor General also brought to our notice the
decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Abdul
Ahad v.
The Inspector General of Police, U.P.(4) The decision
certainly helps him, and as a natter of fact, the Full Bench overruled the judgment of the Division Bench under appeal. But, with
respect, we arc unable to agree with the conclusion that even if the
order of compulsory retirement recites the fact that the public
servant had outlived his utility, it would not amount to a punitive
order. The Full Bench was of the view that "compulsory retirement
will always be on the ground that he can no longer render useful
service. The position certainly does not become worse because
(I) (115~] S.C.R. !052
(3) [1955] I S.C.R. 26.
(2) 11961) I S.C.R. 88.
(4) A.I.R. 1965 All. 142.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
U. P. STATE v. M. M. NAGAR (Sikri, /.)
339
what is implied is expressed." We are unable to agree that the
position does not
become worse because a stigma is attached
expressly.
We may say thi.t the question whether Article 465-A, note (1),
violates art. 311 of the Constitution was not argued before us and we
say nothing about it.
In the result the appelll fails and is dismissed with costs.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.