Division Bench of SC Gives Split Verdict
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court gave a split verdict on whether age or the number of years of service should determine the basis of retirement when a person joined before reaching the age of majority as an employee.
Case Reference
Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board and others.
Case Details
The appellant was appointed as a Calligraphist-cum-Assistant of the Bihar School Examination Board on 20th May 1970, at about 15½ years of age. It is undisputed that on the date of the appellant's appointment, there was no minimum age prescribed for the position of Calligraphist-cum-Assistant. However, the minimum age for entry into pensionable service was 16 years. This meant that the period of service before reaching 16 years would not count towards a pension.
A government circular, fixing the minimum age for appointment at 18 years, was issued almost 18 years after the petitioner's appointment. It was prospective and applied only to appointments made after the issuance of the said circular.
The fact that an employee may have been a minor at the time of initial appointment is inconsequential in the absence of any law at the material time prohibiting the appointment of 15/16-year-old minors. The appellant, who was 15½ years old, may have been a minor but certainly not a toddler. It is absurd to suggest that any rational employer, far less a statutory body, would appoint a toddler. The hypothesis of appointing a toddler is far-fetched and unrealistic. The apprehension of future claims for appointments from persons under 18 years of age is also baseless, given the circular dated 15th January 1998, which fixes 18 years as the minimum age for retirement. This circular would govern subsequent appointments.
Since the Division Bench had different opinions on the issue, it was decided that the appeal should be allowed, and the judgment and order of the Division Bench and the Single Bench be set aside. The appellant is entitled to a declaration that he was entitled to continue in service until 18th November 2014, the date on which he completed 60 years of age, according to his service records, and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, if any, and pensionary benefits.
Since we have not agreed, let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assignment to a larger bench.
Let us wait for the larger bench to rule on the subject.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3180The Division Bench of the Supreme Court gave a split verdict on whether age or the number of years of service should determine the basis of retirement when a person joined before reaching the age of majority as an employee.
Case Reference
Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board and others.
Case Details
The appellant was appointed as a Calligraphist-cum-Assistant of the Bihar School Examination Board on 20th May 1970, at about 15½ years of age. It is undisputed that on the date of the appellant's appointment, there was no minimum age prescribed for the position of Calligraphist-cum-Assistant. However, the minimum age for entry into pensionable service was 16 years. This meant that the period of service before reaching 16 years would not count towards a pension.
A government circular, fixing the minimum age for appointment at 18 years, was issued almost 18 years after the petitioner's appointment. It was prospective and applied only to appointments made after the issuance of the said circular.
The fact that an employee may have been a minor at the time of initial appointment is inconsequential in the absence of any law at the material time prohibiting the appointment of 15/16-year-old minors. The appellant, who was 15½ years old, may have been a minor but certainly not a toddler. It is absurd to suggest that any rational employer, far less a statutory body, would appoint a toddler. The hypothesis of appointing a toddler is far-fetched and unrealistic. The apprehension of future claims for appointments from persons under 18 years of age is also baseless, given the circular dated 15th January 1998, which fixes 18 years as the minimum age for retirement. This circular would govern subsequent appointments.
Since the Division Bench had different opinions on the issue, it was decided that the appeal should be allowed, and the judgment and order of the Division Bench and the Single Bench be set aside. The appellant is entitled to a declaration that he was entitled to continue in service until 18th November 2014, the date on which he completed 60 years of age, according to his service records, and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, if any, and pensionary benefits.
Since we have not agreed, let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assignment to a larger bench.
Let us wait for the larger bench to rule on the subject.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Extension of retirement age of teachers in Maharashtra 25.2.2011.pdf