SANTAJI RAO BHONSLE Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.6.2001 by which he has been compulsorily retired from service on scrutiny of his case under Fundamental Rules 56 read with Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1976').

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, before this Court, is that the petitioner had a good service record and was not communicated with any adverse entries in spite of which the respondents have compulsorily retired the petitioner which indicates total non-application of mind and perversity on their part. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no element of public interest involved in the issuance of the impugned order and in fact public interest would not have been adversely effected if he would have been retained in service. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order, being arbitrary and perverse, deserves to be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The respondents have also produced the service record of the petitioner to substantiate the impugned order of compulsory retirement. From a perusal of the service record of the petitioner it is apparent that the petitioner was initially appointed as Process Writer on 26.2.1974 and was, thereafter, promoted as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1982. His case for compulsory retirement was scrutinized by the Screening Committee in exercise of powers under Fundamental Rule 56 read with Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1976, as he had completed 20 years of service and had also attained the age of 50 years.