REKHA SHRIKUNJ Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned, two writ petitions arises out of the same impugned order dtd. 14/1/2020, which has been passed by the respondent No. 2, herein i.e. District Judge, District Haridwar, by virtue of which, the learned District Judge, on the basis of an administrative order dtd. 14/1/2020, which was in turn based upon the report of the Screening Committee dtd. 13/12/2019, as well as, the order of the Administrative Officer dtd. 24/12/2019, had passed the order, directing compulsory retirement of the petitioner's in the exercise of its inherent powers under Rule 56 (C) of Financial Handbook, Part II to IV.

(2.) In Writ Petition (S/S) No. 375 of 2020, the facts which are slightly different then to the other connected matter, it is that the petitioner was initially appointed as class-III employee in the district judgeship of Haridwar, on 13/11/1991, in the then pay-scale, which was admissible to the said cadre of post, carrying a scale of Rs.950.001500. As a consequence of the petitioner's appointment, his services records were annually assessed and annual confidential report was recorded by the competent appointing authority, which the petitioner contends, that as per the entries, which had been made therein, the petitioner past carries a satisfactory service record.

(3.) The Senior Administrative Officer of the District Judgeship of Haridwar, on the basis of the scrutiny of service records of different set of employees, who were working in the district judgeship had marked out and identified, as many as 57 such employees, who had attained the age of 50 years and as per the scrutiny of their respective service records, their work and conduct were not found to be satisfactory and that is why in furtherance of the Government Orders dtd. 20/2/2002 and 30/6/2003, the respondent No. 2, had issued letters for compulsory retirement of the State employees, who had attained the age of 50 years, as they were determined to be the deadwood in the organisation.