CHHATTISGARH STATE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Vs. AMRITLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dtd. 1/11/2021 passed in WPS No. 2303/2012 by which learned Single Judge allowed writ petition filed by respondent-employee and quashed the order dtd. 8/9/2011 compulsorily retiring the respondent No. 1 from service.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this writ appeal are that on 23/3/1990 respondent employee was appointed as 'Mechanic' in the then Madhya Pradesh Energy Development Corporation Limited. After reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, services of petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Respondent employee was sent on deputation to Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (for short 'CREDA'). While working in CREDA, respondent was served with notice dtd. 9/6/2011 intimating him that he shall stand retired compulsorily from service w.e.f. 8/9/2011. Respondent submitted representation to the Director, CREDA against the said notice of compulsory retirement. Respondent retired compulsorily on 8/9/2011 vide Annexure P-1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement, the respondent-employee preferred writ petition bearing WPS No. 2303/2012 seeking following relief:-

(3.) The grounds raised in writ petition were that action of the respondent authority in passing order of compulsory retirement (Annexure P-1) is arbitrary and illegal. The order of compulsory retirement is passed under Rule 21.1 of the Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency Employees/Officers Recruitment, Conditions of Service (Classification and Appeal) Rules, 2004 (for short 'the Rules of 2004') which grants unbridled powers to the respondent employer, hence it is not sustainable in law. Petitioner employee was having unblemished service record of last 20 years, except issuance of a notice as he was graded below benchmark i.e. 'C' grade, in his annual confidential report, which was premeditated. Remarks made in ACR are stigmatic in nature and therefore the order of compulsory retirement could not have been passed without holding proper departmental inquiry.