DILAWAR SINGH PAUL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who was Agricultural Officer, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated March 5, 1990 retiring him compulsorily under Fundamental Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book. Part II, Volume 2 to 4. Parties have exchanged their affidavits. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it has been stated that the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed on the basis of the adverse entry given to the Petitioner for the year 1980-81. in this connection, an extract from Paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced below:

(3.) Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer and Anr., 1992 AIR(SC) 1020, has laid down that uncommunicated adverse entries can be taken into consideration by the Government while passing the order of compulsory retirement. A learned single Judge of this Court in Krishna Pal Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Anr.,1993 2 UPLBEC 1049, has held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer (supra) is not applicable to the U.P. Government employees in view of the amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U.P. Act of 1976. Relevant extracts from the judgment of the learned single Judge are reproduced below: