LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-243

SHANKER PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On October 30, 2014
Shanker Pratap Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Shankar Preatap Singh has approached this Court for following relief: -

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer on 31.1.1970 in the erstwhile U.P. Local Self Government Engineering Department (UPLSGED). After the enactment of U.P Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (Act for Short), the U.P. Jal Nigam was established and the services of the petitioner were merged in the same as Junior Engineer. Petitioner was subsequently promoted in the Jal Nigam on the post of Assistant Engineer on 29.4.1998. The petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer on 22.06.1998. During continuance of petitioner in services, record in question reflects that for the purposes of undertaking exercise of screening meeting of screening committee was held on 27.7.1995 and said screening committee in question comprised of Sri A.K. Seth, Chief Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow (Chairman), Sri C.M. Srivastava, Superintending Engineer Inspection Division, U.P. Jal Nigam and Sri B.L. Gautam, Superintending Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam, as member. Said committee examined the service record of the petitioner and took resolve, recommending therein for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Pursuant to aforementioned order, decision has been taken, and accordingly petitioner has been compulsory retired and same has impelled the petitioner to be before this Court.

(3.) SRI Abhisekh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case order of compulsory retirement has been colourably exercised by the authorities as he could not be termed as dead wood and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner before passing the said order and coupled with this as petitioner had been promoted in the past, the entries prior to it could not have been made foundation and basis for passing order of compulsory retirement, as such order of compulsory retirement is unjustifiable and liable to be quashed and all benefits be extended to him.