KRISHNA MURARI SRIVASTAVA Vs. COLLECTOR AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relief for the quashing of two orders passed by the Collector, Agra, dated August 5, 1974, reverting the petitioner from the officiating post of Naib Tahsildar to the post of Supervisor Kanungo and the order dated August 6, 1974, retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service under Fundamental Rule 56.

(2.) THE petitioner was holding the post of Supervisor Kanungo in a substantive and permanent capacity. While he was posted at Agra, the Collector made local arrangement and promoted the petitioner to officiate on the post of Naib Tahsildar. On August 5, 1974, the Col lector, Agra, passed an order reverting the petitioner to his substan tive post of Supervisor Kanungo without assigning any reasons. The following day, i.e., on August 6, 1974, the Collector passed another order in exercise of his powers under Fundamental Rule 56 retiring the petitioner composedly from service as he had attained the age of 55 years. The petitioner has challenged both these orders in the present petition

(3.) IT was then contended that the petitioner nad attained the age of 55 years in October, 1973, but even thereafter he was allowed to continue in service. Therefore he could not be retired compulsorily before attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner's work and con-duct was not found unsatisfactory during the period of his extended service. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that no doubt the petitioner completed his age of 55 years in 1973 but as his service record including the character roll was not above average, he was not considered fit to be retained in service after completion of 55 years, accordingly the Collector in exercise of his powers under Fundamental Rule 56 passed the impugned order. It has been fur ther asserted that the petitioner's case had not been considered for retaining him in service when he attained the age of 55 years and he was never permitted by the appointing authority to be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years. The consideration of his case took some time and it was for the first time that the Collector passed the impugned order on August 6, 1974, and prior to that the peti tioner's case was neither considered nor any order permitting him to continue in service had been passed.