Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from compulsory retirement orders issued against three Patwaris employed in the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The appellants challenged their compulsory retirement before the Rajasthan High Court, contending that at the relevant time Rule 244(2) could be invoked only in respect of Gazetted Government Servants and not in respect of Government Servants belonging to Subordinate Services. The High Court rejected this and other contentions, both before a Single Judge and a Division Bench, leading to the present appeals by special leave. The factual background showed that Rule 244(2) empowered the Government to require a Government Servant to retire after completing 25 years of qualifying service or attaining 55 years of age or any date thereafter. Although the rule on its face applied to both Gazetted and non-Gazetted Government Servants, the Government of Rajasthan issued guidelines from time to time. The last relevant one before the Court was Circular dated 23.04.1990 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, which gave modalities and details to give effect to the rule. The Court observed that without such circulars, the Government could not have operationalised Rule 244(2), and the circular was treated as part of the rule. Subsequently, on 22.08.1990, the same department issued another circular, which stated that a doubt had been raised whether information was to be sent to the DOP in respect of all categories of Government Servants or only Gazetted Government Servants. It clarified that information in respect of only Gazetted Government Servants was to be sent, and further clarified that 'at present action under Rule 244(2) RSR is to be initiated in respect of Gazetted Government Servants only.' The core legal issue was whether this circular restricted the operation of Rule 244(2) to Gazetted Government Servants only. The appellants argued that the circular was part of the earlier circular and that the impugned orders of compulsory retirement were contrary to the policy, hence liable to be set aside. The respondents contended that the circular was only a clarification and could not override the statutory rule. The Supreme Court rejected the respondents' argument. It held that because the earlier circular of 23.04.1990 was treated as part of Rule 244(2), the subsequent circular of 22.08.1990 was an addition to that circular. The decision in the 22.08.1990 circular to initiate action only against Gazetted Government Servants for the present was a policy of the Government and not a mere clarification. A careful reading of the three paragraphs left no doubt that the Government had decided to restrict the operation of Rule 244(2) to Gazetted Government Servants only. Consequently, the orders compulsorily retiring the appellants, who were non-gazetted Patwaris, could not be sustained. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned compulsory retirement orders, and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Interpretation of Rule 244(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules - The statutory rule empowered Government to retire any government servant after 25 years qualifying service or 55 years, but it was made workable only through executive circulars; the Court found that Circular dated 23.04.1990 was treated as part of Rule 244(2) and Circular dated 22.08.1990 restricted present action to Gazetted Government Servants only - Held that the restriction was a policy decision and not a mere clarification, and therefore Rule 244(2) could not be invoked against non-gazetted Patwaris (Paras 1-4). B) Administrative Law - Government Circulars - Binding Effect of Executive Instructions - A subsequent circular which adds a policy limitation to an earlier implementing circular is binding on the Government, particularly when the rule itself could not be operationalised without such circulars - Court rejected the contention that Circular dated 22.08.1990 was merely clarificatory, because its clear language said action under Rule 244(2) was to be initiated in respect of Gazetted Government Servants only; consequently orders compulsorily retiring non-gazetted employees were set aside and appeals allowed with no order as to costs (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the invocation of Rule 244(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules to compulsorily retire the appellants (Patwaris, non-gazetted employees) was sustainable in light of Circular dated 22.8.1990 which stated that action under Rule 244(2) was to be initiated only in respect of Gazetted Government Servants.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; orders of compulsory retirement set aside; Rule 244(2) could not be invoked against non-gazetted employees due to policy circular dated 22.8.90; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Government circulars prescribing guidelines for exercise of statutory power under service rules
- when treated as part of the rule
- can restrict the scope of that rule
- a subsequent circular stating action under Rule 244(2) Rajasthan Service Rules to be initiated only against Gazetted Government Servants is a policy decision
- not mere clarification
- compulsory retirement of non-gazetted employees in violation of such policy circular is unsustainable.
