STATE OF M. P. Vs. RAM SEWAK JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in OA No. 218/1996.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the respondent No.2 was working as Asstt. Statistical Officer in the State of Madhya Pradesh and he was prematurely retired under rule 42 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 by order dated 3.8.1995. The Respondent No.1 challenged the said order dated 3.8.1995 of compulsory retirement before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in OA No. 218/1996. The Tribunal found from the records of the Screening Committee that the Screening Committee has considered the CRs of respondent No. 1 only for the period 1990 -1994. The Tribunal held that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court the entire service record of the Government servant had to be seen by the Screening Committee and since only five years' CRs of the respondent No.1 were considered by the Screening Committee, the order of compulsory retirement was liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the order of compulsory retirement and directed that the respondent No.1 should be given consequential reliefs by the impugned order dated 19.10.2001. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(3.) MR . S.P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in WP No.113/2002 [State of M.P. and another v. Kedar Nath Ashthana and another] has decided on 24.1.2002 that where the entire service record of the employee has not been taken into consideration before passing an order of compulsory retirement, the same was illegal as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Ofjicer, Baripada and another [(1992) 2 SCC 299], State of Orissa and others v. Ram Chandra Das [( 1996) 5 SCC 33]] and State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [(2001) 3 SCC 314]. He submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench in WP No. 113/2002 was challenged before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition but the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition.