Trace Your Case

STATE OF ASSAM V. B.K.DAS

State of Assam v. B.K.Das, AIR 1973 SC 1252

ISSUE:

  • Whether a government servant has a right to be continued in service beyond the age of superannuation, even if they are efficient and physically fit for work?
  • Whether selective retention of some government servants after retirement age amounts to discrimination?

RULE:

  • Executive instructions, unlike statutory rules, do not confer any legal rights and cannot form the basis for legal action.
  • Government has discretionary power to retain or retire public servants after superannuation age based on their efficiency and public service requirements.
  • Retention of some efficient employees beyond retirement age while retiring others does not constitute discrimination if based on valid assessment of their performance.
  • However, this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith.

FACTS:

  • The Assam government issued a memorandum raising the retirement age for government employees from 55 to 58. However, the memorandum clarified that this extension was not automatic and would be granted only if the appointing authority was satisfied with the employee’s efficiency and physical fitness.
  • Basanta Kumar Das (respondent) and three other government servants (S, H, and BR & K) were due to retire at 55.
  • BR & K were recommended for service extension by the Board constituted to assess their fitness. However, the Minister in-charge disagreed.
  • The Deputy Commissioner recommended extending the service of S and H, but the Commissioner (appointing authority) rejected it.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court upheld the Assam government’s decision in all four cases.
  • The 1963 memorandum was merely an executive instruction conferring no legal rights.
  • The Court’s verdict clarified that while there’s no automatic right to extended service, the government’s decision-making process regarding such extensions must be fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary or based on irrelevant factors.
  • The Minister’s decision to retire officers despite Screening Board recommendation was valid as there was no proof of mala fides.
  • No discrimination was established as decisions were based on assessment of efficiency and service requirements.