KAMLAKAR UPADHYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.12.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) as passed by respondent No. 3 by which, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired.

(2.) At the time when the order of petitioner's compulsory retirement was passed, he was serving as Deputy Jailer in the District Jail, Pratapgarh. In respect to the claim of promotion to the post of Jailer as juniors to the petitioner were promoted, after a chase in the department, he filed a claim petition before the State Services Tribunal vide Claim Petition No. 2584 of 1997 which vide its order dated 29.4.1999 allowed the claim petition and a direction was given to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion with full benefits from the date on which Juniors were promoted, within a period of three months. When compliance was not made to the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 388 of 1999 which was pending before the Tribunal. In the meantime, opposite parties appear to have filed writ petition before this Court against the order of the Tribunal dated 29.4.1999 which was numbered as W.P. No. 1315 (S/B) of 1999 but in the writ petition, no interim order was granted in favour o the writ petitioners. It is after this effort on the part of the respondents of getting the order of Tribunal stayed, in the event of failure to get protection from compliance to the direction of the Tribunal, the present exercise of screening the petitioner for compulsory retirement was proceeded and that came in the shape of the order dated 6.12.2000. against which, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on part of the respondents besides being Illegal, arbitrary is punitive in nature. It has also been argued that it is only to avoid the compliance of the order of Tribunal which was tried to be implemented by the petitioner, by filing a contempt petition, the respondents when insplte of filing writ petition before this Court, having not been able to obtain interim order, with bad motive have taken the Impugned action. It has been further argued that materials as exists on record, cannot justify the action of respondents as even accepting the totality of the circumstances, It cannot be held that continuance of the petitioner in service will not be in the public interest. To strengthen the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there has been certain adverse entries against him but all were of the period before 1993 and right from 1994 onward, there has been no adverse entry whatsoever till the time when the matter was considered on 6.12.2000. It has been submitted that on 20.6.1995 after considering the previous records, petitioner was confirmed on the post of Deputy Jailer. According to the learned counsel, the confirmation on the post of Deputy Jailer by order dated 20.6.1995, came to be in petitioner's favour as the earlier charges against the petitioner were not so serious on account of which mainly for certain years warning and stoppage of some increments were ordered. So far as annual confidential report in respect to the petitioner is concerned, a Chart has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner after serving copy of the same to learned standing counsel which shows that it is for the years 1985-86 and 1988-89 it was adverse, for other years. It is mentioned either as fair or as good. The chart as has been submitted, takes note of various entries as detailed in the counter-affidavit by which It appears that after 1994-95 onward there is nothing adverse against the petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entries even if adverse, before the confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Jailer on 20.6.1995, should not have been taken into account as on a consideration of previous record of the petitioner, he was confirmed giving benefit of his satisfactory record. For consideration of compulsory retirement, a Government servant, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the norms as has been provided by the Government order dated 30.6.1993. This Government order has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the amendment application.