KISHAN SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notice dated July 12, 1990, the petitioner was sought to be retired prematurely under Rule 56, Volume II, Part II to IV of the Financial Hand Book. The said order is Annexure-I to the writ petition. Mr. A. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of Government Order dated December 21, 1989, a Municipal servant outside the Centralized service could be terminated prematurely after attaining 50 years provided prior approval of the Commissioner is received on the recommendation of the Screening Committee. In the present case no such approval was obtained therefore, premature retirement was invalid.

(2.) Mr. Murlidhar assisted by Mr. P. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the retirement was effected in exercise of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 3 of the Retrenchment and Retirement of Servants of Municipal Board, Regulation, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 1965 Regulation) therefore, there is no necessity of obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner in the present case. Mr. Murlidhar further contended that though power under Regulation 3 (2) of the 1965 Regulation was exercised but by mistake the notice has mentioned Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book. Therefore, since it was within the competence of the authority to retire the petitioner under Regulation 3 since the petitioner had already attained 58 years, therefore, non-mentioning of the provision would not invalidate the order passed. He had relied on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Chand Bhilwar v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 (1) ESC 176 (All) and Swendra Singh v. Cane Commissioner/ Registrar Co-operative Societies, U. P. and others, 1989 AWC 1189, rendered by a Division Bench in support of his above contention.

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