GAFOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the abovesaid three writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged their order of compulsory retirement. In all three petitions, the impugned order of compulsory retirement is Annexure -A/1 dated 26.7.19 -94: Petitioner Gafoor Mohammad of Writ Petition No. 9158/2003 was serving on the post of Head Constable, petitioner Abdul Hafiz of W.P. No. 9157/2003 was also serving on the post of Head Constable while the petitioner Hari Krishna of W.P. No. 9156/2003 was serving on the post of Constable. All these three petitioners having attained the age of 55 years were directed to be compulsorily retired in public interest under F.R. 56 by giving three months wages and allowances. All the petitioners were serving in the police department. Against the order retiring them compulsorily, they submitted representation to DIG Police, Jabalpur Range, Jabalpur. The representation/appeal is Annexure -A/3 in all the petitions. According to the petitioners, the order retiring them compulsorily is arbitrary, illegal and is not based on material on record. It has been contended that the State Government framed guidelines for invoking the powers under F.R. 56 and the said guideline is Annexure -A/4. According to the learned Counsel, a Screening Committee is required to be constituted to examine the service record of the employees. At the time of screening the cases, the Screening Committee is required to examine the following:

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, none of the condition is ever found in the case of any of the petitioner and therefore the order of compulsory retirement Annexure -A is bad in law.

(3.) SHRI Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions placed reliance on certain decisions they, are: State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel : 2001 (89) FLR 173, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Chand Awadhiya and Ors. : 2002 (4) MPLJ 343 : 2002 (5) MPHT 228, R.K. Panjetha v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Anr. : (2002) 10 SCC 590, Yadav Rao Bhelkar v. State of M.P. and Ors. : 2004 (4) MPLJ 30 : 2004 (2) MPHT 237, and Ram Prasad Dwivedi v. Collector, Shahdol and Anr. : 2004 (3) MPLJ 640 : 2004 (3) MPHT 501.