BHAGWANDAS YADAV Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was communicated that on attaining the age of 58 years, in terms of the provisions of the Regulations made by the M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as 'Corporation'), he will have to retire on 31.03.2011 and in case such officers or employees wish to get extension of two years in service as per the scheme made by the Corporation, such officer/employee is required to submit the medical fitness certificate from the Civil Surgeon or Chief Medical & Health Officer and to submit a representation in this respect. It is contended that representation was made by the petitioner on 31.12.2010 annexing with it a copy of the medical fitness certificate issued by the competent Medical Board but he was communicated that since the annual confidential reports of the preceding three years were not graded as 'good', the petitioner was not to be granted extension in age of superannuation. It is contended that such a fact was not rightly considered inasmuch as the petitioner was already found medically fit, there was manipulation in the grading of the ACR of the petitioner for the year ending 31st March, 2010 and specially when the ACR of the petitioner was written as 'very good', it could not have been treated to be 'average' only, as was certified by the other officer. This being so, if the rightful assessment of the merit of the petitioner would have been done, he would have been granted extension in service. Such a representation again was rejected whereas similar benefit was extended to other employees. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to grant of extension of two years in service.

(2.) THE respondents in their return have contended that age of superannuation prescribed under the Regulations is 58 years. However, the Board of Directors of the respondents have decided by making a circular that two years extension in service would be available to such employees in case they submit a medical fitness certificate and in case it is found that their assessment of the last three years ACRs preceding the year of retirement is good. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner was considered. Though he was found medically fit, but in the last three years ACRs of the petitioner it was seen that he was graded as good officer in two ACRs and in the last ACR of the year 2009-2010, he was graded as an 'average' employee. It is contended that in fact the ACR of the year 2009-2010 was written by two officers, one who has seen his working for a period of seven months and the other one who has seen his work for remaining five months. THE ACR is to be initiated only on completion of the financial year. Since the later part of the ACR of the petitioner was 'average', it was treated to be average and on account of this reason, it was found that the petitioner is not fulfilling the criteria laid-down by the Board of Directors of the Corporation and was, thus, not granted the extension in service. It is contended that the ACRs of the petitioner were written in the manner prescribed by the State Government by issuance of various circulars, which have been adopted by the respondent Corporation and, therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality was committed in writing of the ACRs of the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the claim made by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.