TI9E MADMYA PRADESH SWASKBYA I$EVA%6 (ADHEYAW SSCF[l[Kr-AY U j ADHINIY L-%bT, 8964

2 · ,4mendment sf Fundament31 Rules.-For rule 56 of the Fuiidarnental Rule ~pplicable to the State of hA,:ldhya Pradesh as subsituted by section 3 of the Mai;hya Pradesh Shackiya Sewak Anivarya Sevanivritti Ka kidhimanyatakarnn Adhiniyam, 1967 (5 of 1967) (hereafter referred ta a, thesaid Act), ilie follov;ir?g shall be substituted, namely :--

957 · ifhfiifhiif Shiii ()

1960 · If he was force to make the entry as he later contended, that viould be a disputed question of facts on which the High Court would not go in evidence. In so fix as the adinission in the declaration of February, 1960 is concerned, there is no such plea of undue influence or coercion or misapprehension. Prilijcr facie, however, the two documents were held to be voluntarily exect~ted. Ildnkrilci'ilroraj Sing!t KT. Stntc of Madhya Prndesh nrrd another. 1974 M.P.L,J. 31.

670 · of 1965 JN. Snxelza Vs. State of M.P., decided on the 3CI-1: January, 1967, tllc Supreme Court held that retirement of a Goverriment servanr, after he attains the age of 55 years, on three month's notice on the basis of the General Administration Departinent Memorandurn No. 433-2-58-1 (iii) 763 dated thc 28th February, 1963 is invalid in since the said n~en~oranduin was lnerely an executive direction,and not a rule governing the conditions of service of Government servants. The decision affected a large number of retirements ordered on the basis of the aforesaid memoraildunl and involved considerable financial burden on the State Exchequer by way of payment of arrears. There were likely to be

5 · of the Act, oa a properconstructio:?, do not vacate #he decree of the Supreme Court, requiiing the respondent to the appelta~it the pecuni3ry benefits resulting from the succzss of his earlier appeal (CAA, 670;65) in Supreme Cotlrt.

111 · Piore Dr~snrlc~ nrzd otl1~1.s Vs. Tlzc Ki;g Ei;-i:pc>ror 1944 F.C.R. 61, the Governor General by Orclinance repealed the Special Criminal Courts Ordinante JI of 1943. Tilere was a provision ill the repealing ordii~ance for confinnation and contiiiunnce of sentences of Special courts and retrial of peildiag cases. The appellant therein had been convicted and sentenced by Special Crimiza! Court which was held have to jurisdiction to try the case by an order or a co~~rt Section 3 (1) of the Special Criminal Courts (Repeal) Or-

3 · 11 (1) doe> not apply, becdus:: sucii retiretnent is ~zcitllzr dismissal nor r rcioval of the p~blic s:rvdnts. If' a.perinanent public servant is compulsorily retired

1 · ule which perniit ted coinpulsury rctiremerlt T' ithout fi iing the

2d · hlld pg ; p

4 · h Govcr:111ient scrvant n:<iy b,: glren extcnsro~~ ofselvice beyond the