S D GANESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed an O.A. being O.A.No. 276 of 1995 before the Tribunal which has been dismissed, therefore the Writ Petition.

(2.) The Writ Petitioner was selected as Telecommunications Inspector by Railway Service Commission, Bombay during the year 1961. After completion of training as Apprentice Telecommunications Inspector he was absorbed in Bombay Division. Thereafter he was transferred to Sholapur. During the year 1966 consequent upon formation of South Central Railway he became employee of South Central Railway. He was promoted as Chief Inspector (now designated as Signal Inspector). Then he was promoted as Signal and Telecommunications Engineer on 11-3-1976 and was posted at Secunderabad. According to the petitioner, the said post was classified as Group 'B' Junior scale. Then again he was promoted as Divisional Signal and Telecommunications Engineer in Secunderabad Division. This post, according to the petitioner, was classified as Group 'B' Senior scale. The Railway Board appointed the petitioner substantively to the I.R.S Signal Engineers Junior Scale with effect from 11-6-1991, He was deputed to J.A grade in the year 1992. On 17-3-93 a communication was given to the petitioner that in public interest he was being retired from service under Rule 1802 (a) of the I.R.E.C Vol. II 1987 Edition as the petitioner had attained the age of 50 years on 31-7-1991. The order of premature retirement was communicated to the petitioner on 31st March, 1993. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his representation against the proposed decision of the President. The petitioner submitted his representation against the proposed decision. The respondent No.3 retired the petitioner from service with effect from 31st March, 1993. The petitioner submitted representation against that decision on 13-4-93. Thereafter the respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that it was tentatively decided by the competent authority to take him back into service purely on compassionate grounds in a substantive capacity in Junior scale provided he was willing to accept the post so offered. On 19-10-93 the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to accept the post offered in the Junior scale. On 11-1-94 respondent No.2 wrote again to the petitioner and informed him that the competent authority was willing to consider him for promotion to the Senior scale after one year provided he joined in the Junior scale Group 'A' and improve his performance to the satisfaction of the superiors. On 27-1-94 the petitioner submitted his representation reiterating his earlier stand. On 18-7-94 the respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dated 18-7-94 conveyed the decision of the competent authority rejecting the representation of the petitioner and again called him to join in Junior scale post. The petitioner conveyed his unwillingness and the matter got almost closed. Thereafter the O.A. was filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has made many arguments in challenging the order of retirement. Counter has also been filed. There is no dispute on the facts. The law is settled that once the Government comes to the conclusion that a person has lost his utility he can be prematurely retired. Premature retirement does not create any stigma. In this connection reference can be made to various judgments of the Supreme Court, and of this Court in M. Ravi Kumar v. Union of India in which we have gone through the judgments of Supreme Court in Baikuntanath Das v. Chief District A Medical Officer, Baripada and D. Ramaswami v. State cf Tamil Nadu. There is no problem in accepting the contention of the respondents that if the competent authority is satisfied that an employee has lost his utility he can be removed as dead wood but this is a case which is altogether different. The petitioner was retired from service prematurely as dead wood but he was given a chance to represent against the order retiring him and when he represented the authorities passed orders offering him a lower post. These letters are very important. First letter is dated 7-10-93. This letter reads as follows;