AMRITLAL Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has taken exception to the order dtd. 8/9/2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the three months' notice for compulsory retirement dtd. 9/6/2011 (Annexure P-7) has been given effect to and by which the petitioner has been compulsorily (prematurely) retired from service with effect from 8/9/2011 as per Rule 21.1 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Akshay Oorja Vikas Abhikaran (CREDA) Ke Karmachariyon / Adhikariyon Ke Seva Bharti, Seva Sharte, Vargikaran Aur Appeal Niyam, 2004 (for short, 'the Rules of 2004'). The aforesaid order has been challenged as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the well settled law in that behalf.

(2.) The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as Mechanic on 21/3/1990 vide Annexure P-2 by the then Madhya Pradesh Energy Development Corporation Limited and he was posted at Bilaspur. Thereafter, on reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and after formation of the State of Chhattisgarh with effect from 1/11/2000, a body in the name and style of the Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (CREDA) was constituted and the petitioner became regular employee of the said Agency with effect from 25/5/2001. The petitioner was sent on deputation in the year 2005 for a period of two years to the Chhattisgarh Bio-fuels Development Corporation Limited from where he was repatriated in the respondent Agency in the year 2007 and since then he was posted at Jagdalpur, District Bastar and he was thereafter, transferred to the office of respondent No.4 with effect from 26/6/2008. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he was maintaining all along a clean service record and he was performing his duties with due sincerity and never caused any occasion of dissatisfaction of his higher authorities, and he was never ever asked to make any explanation in support of his any of the conduct, Although the petitioner was continuing his service with the respondents with due sincerity, he was put to utter surprise by issuance of a three months' notice for compulsorily retirement dtd. 9/6/2011 and firstly, he was compulsorily retired from service on 8/9/2011 by accepting the recommendations of the Screening Committee dtd. 18/5/2011 and 18/11/2010. It is the further case of the petitioner that Rule 21.1 of the Rules of 2004 gives unfettered and unbridled power to respondent No.1, as it nowhere speaks of compulsory retirement in public interest or in the interest of the institution and as such, the order of compulsory retirement is unsustainable and bad on that count itself. It has been further pleaded that the order of compulsory retirement is based on no evidence, it is perverse and it reflects non-application of mind. In addition to that, it has also been pleaded the competent authority of the petitioner did not apply its independent mind and passed order on the recommendations of the Screening Committee dtd. 18/5/2011 and 18/11/2010 and he has been compulsorily retired from service which is totally unjustified, arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside.