"Section 9(2) is not violative of the Article 135 for simple reason that protection under Article 135 is strictly limited to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, whereas premature retirement on completion of 25 years service with full pensionary benefits, does, under no circumstances, amount to dismissal or removal." ~ Mr. Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, [Para: 127(c)].
"A government servant has a right to hold the post to which he has been substantively appointed. He can be removed from the post only in accordance with the Rules or law governing his service and the same must be in conformity with Article 135 of the Constitution. The power of the government to retire a government servant before the age of superannuation is only on the ground of "public interest". That is to say there must be a case that the government servant concerned suffers from inefficiency or incompetency. The safety valve has been provided in all service rules whether framed under the Government of India Act, 1935 or under the Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973; one thing is common in the matter of causing premature retirement, that "the services of the public servant is considered not necessary in the interest of public service." In the instant case Ac: XII of 1974 does not contain the safety valve: and the affidavits filed by the government also do not put forward any ground that efficiency of the appellant was impaired, and the government considering it not desirable to being any charge of inefficiency or incompetency passed the order of retirement. It is true that the order does not contain any stigma, but the very fact that the appellant was selected out of a number of persons similarly placed, and consequently he has been deprived not only from continuing in the employment for the remaining period of his tern service but also from some of the service benefits accrued to him, makes out a case of punishment. In effect, whatever may be the phraseology used in terminating the service, it is punishment imposed on him, for it not only destroys his right to the post held by him, but also inevitably carries with it a stigma. Such a termination is "removal" within the meaning of Article 135 of the Constitution. Therefore the statute or Rule providing a mode of terminating service at the discretion of the authority without complying with Article 135 is unconstitutional." ~ Mr. Justice Ruhul Islam with Mejority View [Para: 115]