State of Assam v. B.K. Das

Case Title: STATE OF ASSAM V. B.K.DAS

Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1252 | Court: Supreme Court of India

This case explains that there is no automatic right for a government servant to continue after the retirement age. The government may extend service based on efficiency, fitness, and public interest. Executive instructions do not create enforceable rights. Selective retention is not discrimination if decisions are fair, relevant, and in good faith.

1. Do government servants have a right to continue beyond superannuation if they are efficient and fit?
2. Does retaining only some officers after retirement age amount to unconstitutional discrimination?

• Executive instructions are not statutory rules; they do not create legal rights.
• Government has discretion to extend or not extend service after superannuation based on efficiency, fitness, and service needs.
• Selective retention is not discrimination if based on valid, relevant assessment and public interest.
• Discretion must not be arbitrary, unreasonable, or in bad faith.

The Supreme Court upheld the State’s decisions. The 1963 memorandum did not create any legal right to automatic extension. Decisions on extension must be fair and based on relevant factors, but the court found no proof of bad faith. Disagreement with the Screening Board was within power. Selective retention did not amount to discrimination in these facts.

There is no vested right to continue beyond superannuation. Executive instructions cannot be enforced as law. Government may extend service based on efficiency, fitness, and public interest, provided the discretion is exercised reasonably and without mala fides. Selective retention is valid when grounded in relevant assessment.

• Clarifies the limits of executive instructions in service law.
• Affirms controlled discretion for post-retirement extensions.
• Balances equality concerns with administrative flexibility.

Mnemonic: “No Right, Just Rightness.”

1. No Right: No legal right to continue beyond superannuation.
2. Just Reasons: Decisions need relevant, fair reasons.
3. Right Interest: Public interest guides extensions.

Issue: Right to continue beyond superannuation? Is selective retention discriminatory?

Rule: Executive instructions are non-statutory; extension is discretionary if exercised fairly and in public interest.

Application: Memo gave guidance, not rights. Officials assessed efficiency/fitness. Disagreement with board is allowed absent mala fides.

Conclusion: State’s decisions sustained; no automatic right; no discrimination proved.

Superannuation

Official retirement age fixed by policy/rules.

Executive Instructions

Administrative directions without the force of law.

Mala Fides

Bad faith—decision made with improper motive.