VIMAL KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as O.A. No.347/2000 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and has been transmitted to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Engineer (E/M) at the relevant time, had visited the Tribunal by way of filing of this original application ventilating his grievance against the order dated 03.01.2000 by which it was communicated to the petitioner that in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, Bench at Gwalior, after re-screening the case of the petitioner it was found that the order of his compulsory retirement so issued on earlier occasion was to be affirmed on the ground that earlier order of compulsory retirement was issued against the petitioner on 01.10.1997, which order was sought to be challenged in O.A. No.855/1998. The Tribunal after considering the law laid-down by it in an original application filed by similarly situated person, came to the conclusion that since the screening committee constituted for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement was the same and the said committee was found to be invalidly constituted by the Tribunal and it was held that on recommendation of the said committee, compulsory retirement order could not have been issued, the original application of the petitioner was allowed. The said order was not challenged anywhere in case of the petitioner but in one of the case decided at Gwalior Bench of the Tribunal, the writ petition was filed before this Court, Bench at Gwalior, by the State Government. The Division Bench of this Court considered the law laid-down by the Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Chand Awadhiya Vs. State of M.P. & others (O.A. No.3061/1997, decided on 20.03.1998), on the basis of which various cases were decided including the case of the present petitioner as also one B.L. Kaul and others and the Division Bench of this Court reached to the conclusion that there was no wrong committed by the Tribunal in holding that the committee was not rightly constituted. However, the Division Bench of this Court has made an observation that instead of rushing to the Court challenging the well reasoned order of the Tribunal, the State Government could have constituted a fresh screening committee, could have considered the cases of all those persons and could have retired them if they were found fit for such retirement. It is contended that in view of this decision of the Division Bench of this Court, screening of the case of the petitioner was to be done afresh and a fresh decision was required to be taken but he could not have been compulsorily retired by inserting the life in an order, which was already quashed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law.

(3.) It is further contended by the petitioner that the retrospective effect of an order of compulsory retirement was again considered by the Tribunal and in one of the cases of Laxmi Chand Awadhiya, again a decision was given by the Tribunal that the order of compulsory retirement could be prospective and not retrospective. Such an order was also affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court but by that time since the Tribunal was at the verge of closer, instead of remitting back the matter to the Tribunal, this Court has examined the reports of the screening committee and has given opinion in such a case in which recommendation for compulsory retirement was given dehors the rules or law laid-down by the Apex Court and has quashed the recommendations as also the order of compulsory retirement. It is contended that since now the Tribunal is not in existence, this Court would be required to examine the recommendations of the screening committee and petitioner would also be entitled to the similar benefits as was extended in the case of Laxmi Chand Awadhiya