JITENDRA PRASAD CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi and S. P. Srivastava, JJ. Feeling aggrieved by the order com pulsorily retiring the petitioner from ser vice exercising the jurisdiction con templated under the amended Fundamen tal Rule 56, he has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said order alongwith the consequential order issued by the Principal wherein com municating the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner was required to vacate the official residence provided to him.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Coun sel as well as the learned Standing Counsel at some length and have perused the record.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been pointed out that the letter dated 6th February, 1989 relied upon by the petitioner itself provides that in those cases where important facts came to the knowledge of the appointing authority the proceedings for compulsory retirement could be initiated exercising the jurisdic tion contemplated under Fundamental Rule 56 and irrespective of the fact that on the attaining of the age of 50 years, the case has been examined by the Screening Com mittee, the case of the concerned employee may be put up before the ex perienced screening committee. It has fur ther been pointed out that in fact on his attaining the age of 50years, the case of the petitioner was put up before the Screening Committee but the Screening Committee vide its resolution dated 15th November, 1988 had deferred the consideration of the matter relating to the petitioner indicating that his case for compulsory retirement will be considered in the next year. Later on the case of the petitioner was con sidered by the competent screening com mittee which recommended for his com pulsory retirement.