LAL CHAND Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was asked to retire by a notice dated 23rd November, 1990 with 3 months pay in lieu of notice. The said order is Annexure-1, since being challenged in this writ petition. Mr. A. R. Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner assails the same on the ground that the retirement age is 60 years but the petitioner has been sought to be retired only after attainment of 58 years on the ground of inefficiency. According to him, there is no material available on the service record to show that the petitioner was inefficient. Thus, the order of non-retention of the petitioner is purely mala fide and has been passed with an ulterior motive. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained.

(2.) Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. P. K. Singhal on the other hand, contends that the ground for non-retention was in terms of Regulation 3 of Retrenchment and Retirement of Servants of Municipal Boards Regulations, 1965 on the ground of physical unfitness and inefficiency as is apparent from the records, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures-CA-1 and CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. According to him there is a provision to retire a person with 3 months pay in lieu of notice under the said Regulation. Therefore, there having been sufficient materials available in the service record of the petitioner to come to the conclusion as to the inefficiency of the petitioner, a decision having been arrived at by the authority according to their subjective satisfaction, the same, is in fact, the satisfaction which can hardly be interfered by the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.