MAHENDRA KUMAR SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE mythical King Yajati exchanged his old age with his youthful son, and in the instant case, the petitioner though has not intended to travel to that extent yet has vehemently opposed and resisted with indefatigable spirit the action of the State Government, his employer, by whose action the date of birth of the petitioner, as pleaded by him, has been substituted as 1-12-1938 though it was 1-12-1940. We say so as Mr. N. S. Ruprah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, canvassing the case of the petitioner and assailing the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in O. A. No. 980/99 has urged with all the emphasis at his command that the State Government has failed in its obligation to behave like a model employer and visited him with such consequences at the fag end of his service career which is neither permissible in law nor in equity.

(2.) THE factual score to wit is that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') was appointed as Patwari on 4-1-1958. While he was continuing in service on 15-4-1999 a notice to show cause was issued to him vide Annexure P-5, requiring him to offer an explanation as to why his date of birth should not be changed as there had been an interpolation and he was the beneficiary. The applicant filed his reply on 22-4-1999 controverting the contents made in the notice to show cause. Thereafter the competent authority passed an order vide Annexure P-7, dated 9-5-1999 retrospectively retiring the applicant from 30-11-1996.

(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the applicant knocked at the doors of the Tribunal invoking its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Before the Tribunal the applicant contended that the order of retirement could not have been passed retrospectively; that at the fag end of the career of an employee the State Government, the employer, is not entitled to initiate a proceeding of this nature; that the action taken by the employer was absolutely unreasonable being barred by principle of delay and laches; and that the order passed by the authority is beyond jurisdiction inasmuch as Rule 84 of the M. P. Financial Code (for brevity 'the Code') does not so authorise.