MAHESH KUMAR ATHYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was filed initially as Original Application NO.3571/2002 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur, by the petitioner, challenging the order of his compulsory retirement issued on 28.9.2002. Since an interim stay was granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner has continued in the service throughout till he attained the normal age of superannuation. However, after passing certain orders for production of record, it appears that the Original Application was treated to be finally disposed of, by the staff of the Tribunal, the same was deposited in the record room of the Tribunal as disposed of case. After abolition of the Tribunal, such cases were transferred to the High Court and it was found that the pending Original Application was treated to be disposed of, whereas, the same was to be decided, therefore, the same is registered as writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner who was serving as Draftsman in the office of the Collector, Land Records, Chhatarpur, was served with the order dated 28.9.2002, by which it was intimated to him that since he has completed 20 years of service, on screening it is found that he is not entitled to continue in the employment, therefore, he was made to compulsory retire with effect from 31.12.2002 under the provisions of Rule 42(1)(B) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Against this order, the petitioner's contention is that he has good service record to his credit, no adverse entry was communicated to him, he could not have been treated to be a deadwood which was required to be chopped off and, therefore, the notice of compulsory retirement is bad in law. While entertaining the Original Application, an interim stay was granted by the Tribunal to the petitioner on 13.1.2003.

(3.) BY filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has rebutted all those allegations and has contended that the mathematical calculation of ACRs was found to be incorrect procedure adopted by the screening committee. Such circulars were held to be illegal and against the law. Similar orders were passed by this Court in the like manner. Those who were compulsory retired by the respondents on mathematical calculation of the ACRs were re -screened and were reinstated in their service. From the facts, it is clear that there were no downgrading in the ACRs of the petitioner, but such documents are not made available to him. It is further contended that the petitioner was not only allowed to remain in the employment, but his claim was considered and he was given time scale pay upgradation in the year 2012. That being so, the act of respondents in compulsory retiring the petitioner was not justified. No additional return whatsoever has been filed by the respondents though the copy of the rejoinder was served on them long back.