KAMESHWAR NATH SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. No body is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. Sri K. S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the re?pondents has been heard in opposition to the writ petition.

(2.) BY means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the Collectorate, Ballia, seeks to challenge the two orders dated 16th September, 1975 and 31st July, 1979. copies whereof are Annexures 'VIII' and 'IX' to the petition respectively. BY the order dated 56th September, 1975, the petitioner was retired compulsorily on attaining the are age of fifty yearly and by the order dated 31st July, 1979, the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, No, 1, Lucknow rejected the claim-petition of the petitioner against the order of compulsory retirement dated 16th September. 1975 and affirmed the same.

(3.) OTHERWISE also, it is well settled that an order of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is not an order of punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the Government to retire a Government servant compulsorily on its subjective satisfaction provided the order is not malafide or based on no evidence or perverse, (See : Union of India v. Shri Dulal Dutt, JT 1993 (3) SC 706= 1993 AWC 1153, and Shri Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada, JT 1992 (2) SC 1=AIR 1992 SC 1020.