MAHINDER KUMAR Vs. DELHI FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the Petitioner, Deputy General Manager (Technical) in Delhi Financial Corporation (for short "the Corporation?) established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, has challenged the order dated 24th April, 1996, purported to have been passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the authority by virtue of Regulation 20 of the Delhi Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961 (for brevity "1961 Regulations") pre-maturely retiring him on the foundation that the Regulation 20 is unconstitutional and once the provision is declared as unconstitutional, the acts undertaken on the base or bedrock of the said provision deserves to be lanceted and a fall out of that all the consequential benefits are to follow.

(2.) On a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition, it is clear as crystal that the Petitioner has been compulsorily retired at the age of 51 years placing reliance on the Regulation 20(1) of the 1961 Regulations. It is contended in the petition that the said Regulation is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as there is no guidance in the said provision and on a keener scrutiny, it would be manifest that unguided, unfettered and unbridled power has been conferred on the authority to pre-maturely retire a person which invites the frown of the equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that he is not inclined to advance any other contention or assail the order on any other substratum like how the power has been exercised inasmuch as the authority bereft of the provision or sans the power could not have exercised the power. The learned Counsel would submit that if the source of power is declared as ultra vires, the exercise thereof as a sequitur would automatically get annulled.