Skip to content


G. Kothandaramiah Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Government of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad492; 29Ind.Cas.252
AppellantG. Kothandaramiah
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Government of Madras
Excerpt:
civil service regulations, articles 458, 464, interpretation of - pension rules--officer removed from government, service, whether entitled to pension under article 458. - .....the plaint says: 'plaintiff is thus eligible for pension under articles 458 and 459 of the civil service regulations from and after 1st august 1913, when plaintiff completed his age of 55 years.' it was conceded in argument that article 459 does not apply to the case, as the plaintiff was not required 'by the local government to retire ' when he attained the age of 55 on 1st august 1913. the other article 458, which is relied on, is (omitting irrelevant portion)' a superannuation pension is granted to an officer in superior service entitled by rule to retire at a particular age. 'mr. rangachariar, who appears for the plaintiff, asked us to rend this article with article 464, which says that an officer in superior service, who has attained the age of 55 years, may, at his option, retire.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He brought the suit for a declaration that he was entitled to a pension of Rs. 146-10-8 per mensem, or such other sum as the Court may fix, from 1st August 1913 till his death; and for consequential reliefs. Paragraph 16 of the plaint says: 'Plaintiff is thus eligible for pension under Articles 458 and 459 of the Civil Service Regulations from and after 1st August 1913, when plaintiff completed his age of 55 years.' It was conceded in argument that Article 459 does not apply to the case, as the plaintiff was not required 'by the Local Government to retire ' when he attained the age of 55 on 1st August 1913. The other Article 458, which is relied on, is (omitting irrelevant portion)' a superannuation pension is granted to an officer in superior service entitled by rule to retire at a particular age. 'Mr. Rangachariar, who appears for the plaintiff, asked us to rend this Article with Article 464, which says that an officer in superior service, who has attained the age of 55 years, may, at his option, retire on a superannuation pension, 'Now, it is clear, (and if I understood Mr. Rangachariar aright, it was conceded by him) that prima facie these articles are applicable only if, when the officer attains the age of 55, he was in service, and while so in service, exercised his option to retire from service. It is admitted in the plaint (paragraphs 8 and 9) that in 1901 the plaintiff was removed from Government service by the Government of Madras. Paragraph 18 also makes it clear that the plaintiff ceased to be in Government service in 1901, as he says in that paragraph that he was expecting all along to be reinstated in the Government service between 1901 and 1913 and was appealing to Government for restoration to service from time to time. I see nothing in any of the other sections quoted to us by Mr. Rangachariar from the Regulations, which compels us not to give effect to the plain meaning and implication of the words of Section 458, namely, that it is only an officer who is and has continued in Government service when and till he reached the age of 55, and who elects to retire at that age while so being in service, that is entiled to claim a pension under the Regulations. There being thus no basis at all in the Civil Service Regulations for the plaintiff's data, the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge and I would dismiss this appeal. The plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs.

2. Napier, J.--I entirely concur. The plaintiff claims a superannuation pension. The mere name for this class of pension is sufficient to put him out of Court, for it is clear that Article 458 of the Civil Service Regulations only applies to pensions granted to persons entitled or compelled to retire at a particular age. The plaintiff has neither been supperannuated nor did he retire. There is, therefore, obviously no foundation for this claim. I should like to add that we express no opinion as to whether this suit would lie, or whether these Regulations are conditions attached to the service binding on Government or whether this suit is maintainable without leave under the Pensions Act. All these points have not been dealt with by the trial Judge and we confine ourselves to the particular point on which the suit was dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //