MOHAN LAL CAPOOR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged validity of the order of the State Government dated 28-11-1974 retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service in the exercise of its power under Note I to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations by giving him three months salary in lieu of period of notice.

(2.) The petitioner joined the U. P. Slate Police Service in May. 1947. In 1962. he was substantively appointed in the Selection Grade of State Police Service. In November, 1961, his name was included in the list prepared in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations for appointment to the officiating post in the senior scale of Indian Police Service. He was allowed to officiate in the senior scale of Indian Police Service with effect from 16-7-1962. The petitioner's name continued to be included in the select list till 1967 and during all this time the petitioner continued to officiate in the senior scale of Indian Police Service. The petitioner's name was not included in the select list for the year 1968 prepared in accordance with regulation 5 (4) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, instead some officers junior to the petitioner were included in the select list. As the petitioner's name was not included in tha select list, he was reverted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State Cadre. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2771 of 1968 in this Court challenging his reversion as well as the select list for 1968 prepared for promotion to the Indian Police Service. The Writ petition was allowed by this Court on 27-3-69,. and the select list as well as the order reverting the petitioner to substantive post was quashed. The State of Uttar Pradesh took the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of this Court by its order dated 26-9-1973. The judgment is reported in Union of India V/s. Mohan Lal Capoor, 1974 AIR(SC) 87. In pursuance of the judgment of this Court, ILR (1969) 2 All 271 and the Supreme Court the select list for the year 1968 was prepared afresh in 1974. The petitioner's name was, however, not included in the select list. But before that his name had been included in the select list prepared for the year 1970. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police, Railways, a post in the special grade in the State Police Service. While the petitioner was posted as officiating Superintendent of Police, Anti-dacoity Operations, Agra, the State Government issued an order on 28th November, 1974 in exercise of its power under Note I to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations compulsorily retiring the petitioner on his having attained the age of more than 50 years. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged validity of the State Government's order.

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner continued in service under an interim order of this Court dated 24-1-1975. He had been drawing his salary and enjoying full benefits of the service, he attained the age of superannuation of 58 years and retired from service on July 31, 1981. When the writ petition came up for hearing before us we directed the Standing Counsel to enquire from the State Government whether the petitioner will be treated in service during the period he remained in service under the interim order of this Court and whether he will be given the benefit of pension, gratuity, encashment of leave and other allied matters. This had to be done as an argument was advanced on behalf of the State Government that the petitioner having retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation the writ petition was rendered infructuous. On the other hand the petitioner contended that since the petitioner continued in service till his superannuation he was entitled to the full benefits even though he continued to serve under the interim order of this Court. Sri Hari Mohan Singh, Joint Secretary of the State Government in the Home Department, has filed affidavit asserting that the State Government holds the view that the service rendered by the petitioner after 28-11-1974 cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of fixing his pension and other pensionary benefits like, leave, gratuity, encashment etc. The stand taken in the supplementary counter- affidavit is that the petitioner cannot be treated in service for purposes of pensionary benefits as he had been retired compulsorily on 28-11-1974.