Whether a person below 18 years of age can be appointed as government servant?

For the foregoing discussions, we answer the questions of reference, as follows:-

(i) In view of the specific provision in Rule 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, providing the age of compulsory retirement as 60 years (now), a regular Government servant holding the post in substantive capacity, even if appointed prior to the age of 18 years, cannot be superannuated before actually attaining the age of 60 years according to his date of birth recorded in his service records, irrespective of his length of service, treating his age to be 18 years on the date of his appointment.

(ii) In absence of any provision in the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, prohibiting the appointment of a Government servant prior to the age of 18 years, the appointment of a person prior to attaining the age of 18 years, cannot be said to be against Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read with Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875.

(iii) Jharkhand Service Code, being a complete Code in itself, and Rule 73 thereof being specific and unambiguous in its terms, there is no scope of taking help of any other law or rule for drawing any inference that the intention of the Legislature was to allow only 40 years (or 42 years now) of service, as the maximum period of service, to which a Government servant can be allowed to continue in Government service. Accordingly, even if a person enters into the service prior to the age of 18 years, he shall be entitled to continue in service, until he actually attains the age of 60 years as per his date of birth recorded in his service records, which is the prescribed age of compulsory retirement from service, irrespective of his length of service.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 262 of 2011

Decided On: 08.05.2017

 The State of Jharkhand and Ors.Vs.Arun Kumar Dhar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Harish Chandra Mishra, Aparesh Kumar Singh and Dr. S.N. Pathak, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 JHARKHAND 126 (FB)

Print Page

Whether service details of employee can be disclosed under RTI?

 In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Ors., MANU/SC/0816/2012 : (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain v. Union of India and Anr., MANU/SC/0384/2013 : (2013) 14 SCC 794, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.

13. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the Petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the Petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the Petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:

12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third Respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service Rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

14. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by Respondent No. 1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed Under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither Respondent No. 1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to Respondent No. 1.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009

Decided On: 31.08.2017

 Canara Bank Vs.  C.S. Shyam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Print Page

Factors to be considered by high court while interfering with quantum of punishment given to employee

Coming to the first two submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, we are of the view that High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, has power to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the appointing authority in an appropriate case provided the High Court has taken into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case such as nature of charges leveled against the employee, its gravity, seriousness, whether proved and, if so, to what extent, entire service record, work done in the past, remaining tenure of the delinquent left etc. In other words, it is necessary for the High Court to take these factors into consideration before interfering in the quantum of the punishment.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5186 of 2016) (Arising out of SLP (c)... CC 2113/2016)

Decided On: 17.02.2016

Appellants: Commissioner of Police and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Sat Narayan Kaushik

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Jasti Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation:(2016) 6 SCC303

Print Page

Whether succession certificate can be granted in contravention of Nomination?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Decided On: 07.05.2008

Smt. Naseem Begum alias Naseem AktharVs. Smt. Shaista and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Amitava Lala and Shishir Kumar, JJ.

Citation: 2008 (72) ALR 701, 2008 4 AWC3467All, II(2008)DMC669

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Succession certificate--Nominee in service record of deceased--Whether appellant is legally wedded wife of deceased or respondent No. 1--To be determined by civil court--Suit for declaration that appellant is legally married wife--Already instituted by her--Unless service record corrected, authority obliged to pay amount to nominee.

Print Page

Whether theory of washed off adverse remark is applicable to compulsory retirement?

“In view of the above, the law can be summarised to state that

in case there is a conflict between two or more judgments of

this Court, the judgment of the larger Bench is to be followed.

More so, the washed off theory does not have universal

application. It may have relevance while considering the case of

government servant for further promotion but not in a case

where the employee is being assessed by the Reviewing

Authority to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service

or requires to be given compulsory retirement, as the

Committee is to assess his suitability taking into consideration

his "entire service record".

[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8245/2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17760 OF 2013)

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Ors.

V

Babu Lal Jangir

Print Page