H C JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was born on 18-1-1917. He joined Government service as Work Charged Draftsman on 6-10-1939 in the Civil establishment of the Army. He continued to rise and on 23-11-1963 rose to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Gazetted Classsi) of 30-10-1972 he was given notice under clause (h) of Regulation 459 of the Civil Service Regulations retiring him from service with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of service of the notice. He was thus compulsorily retired.

(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner prays that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 30-10-1972 be quashed and he should be allowed to continue in service up to the age of 58 years.

(3.) The Civil Service Regulations define the conditions of service in the civil departments of the Army Establishments. Regulation 459 provides that every Government servant shall retire on the day he attains the age of 58 years. But the appropriate authority, if it is of opinon that it is in public interest to do so has an absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, in case he attained the age of 55 years. The contention of the respondents is that they have retired the petitioner in exercise of this right. The case of the petitioner along with other II officers was placed before the Review Committee consisting of the Defence Secretary as its Chairman and the Additional Secretary- of the Cabinet Secretariat as its member. In the meeting of the Review Committee it was pointed out that according to the criteria fixed by circular letter of the Cabinet Secretariat (Deptt. of Personnel) dated 25-8-1971 for screening of officers for continuation in service beyond the age of 55 years, the entire service recard of the officer concerned and not merely) the record for the last three years was to be taken into account. The confidential dossiers of the officers were examined by the Review Committee on 4-10-1972 and the Committee found some remedial remarks in the ACRs of 1952, 1953, 1955, 1957, I960, 1965 and 1967 which had been communicated to the petitioner. On the basis of an overall assessment the Review Committee did not consider the petitioner suitable for continuation in service beyond the age of 55 years. The recommendation of the Review Committee was submitted for approval of the Defence Minister who approved same-on 7-10-1972.