B P MISRA Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition relates to a service matter. The petitioner V. P. Misra of the Ex-War personnel was ab sorbed in the Watch and Ward on a post of clerk on 23-7-1947 by the then Superintendent, Watch and Ward. East ern Railway. He was later confirmed with effect from 1-4-1956. His date of birth is July 12, 1910. He received an order, which is annexure 5 to the writ petition and is dated 1-3-1967, to the effect that in terms of Chief Security Officer letter dated 9-12-1967 he would retire with effect from 11-7-1968, after noon. In other words, he was to retire on the attainment of the age' of 58 years. The said communication purported to be from the Assistant Security Officer, Lucknow, though it was signed by the Head Clerk of the office for the Assis tant Security Officer. The petitioner made a representation dated 4-3-1967 and also sent reminders on several sub sequent dates, the 1st one being dated 15-12- 1967, of which copy is annexure 6 to the writ petition. He got a reply (copy annexure 7 to the writ petition) dated 16-12-1967 "that the matter was under waiting and the final decision when arrived at will be intimated to him promptly." He never received any communication about the final decision till the date 11-7-1968 arrived or even thereafter. On 21-5-1968, in view of the fact that the date of retirement was approaching he filed the present writ petition. He ask ed for an interim relief for the suspen sion of the order of his retirement "but the same was not given to him and so he has been under retirement from 12-7-1968.

(2.) THE contention of the petition er is that his age of compulsory retire ment was 60 and not 58 and the order for his retirement before attaining the age of 60 could be passed only by a competent authority which was neither the Chief Security Officer nor the Assis tant Security Officer or the Head Clerk who signed for the former. The order is further challenged as mala fide, being secured by opposite party No. 4 to the writ petition, namely, the Assistant Security Officer, ''who became displeased with the petitioner as certain represen tations made by him against the orders of opposite party No. 4 were allowed by higher authorities. The order is ques tioned as discriminatory and void, be ing violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as others in the same position have been allowed to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The failure to decide the representation is said to have caused violation of princi ples of natural justice and the order of retirement to be mala fide and illegal.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a rejoind er affidavit reiterating his allegations denied in the counter affidavit and also referring to a particular name as a per son who was retired at the age of 60 years.