BASANTA KUMAR PAL Vs. CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are briefly as follows. The petitioner, first entered service as a clerk in the then Eastern Bengal Railway, in the year 1919. Upon partition of India, he opted for the Indian Union and was posted under the District Electrical Engineer Dhanbad. The petitioner was to reach his 55th year on 1-7-1950, and he will reach his 60th year on 1-7-1955.

(2.) On 19-5-1949, the petitioner received a notice from the District Electrical Engineer Dhanbad, to the effect that it was proposed to retire him from service when he reached the age of 55 years on 1-7-1950. He was further informed, that if he wished to make a representation, it would be duly considered before final orders were passed. On 19-5-1949, the petitioner wrote to the D. E. E. Dhanbad requesting that his Provident Fund subscription and leave salary might be adjusted.

(3.) On 10-6-1949, he replied to the notice dated 19-5-1949, stating that he was still capable of going on normally with his duties and prayed that his services might be continued until he reached the age of sixty. On 27-7-1949, the D. E. E. Dhanbad, forwarded the application to the Chief Electrical Engineer, Eastern Railway, with his recommendation that the extension might be granted subject to the petitioner being declared physically fit. Nothing however was said about his efficiency. The C. E. E. however was not disposed to accept this recommendation. He replied on 19-8-1949, stating that he saw no reason why a special case recommending the petitioner's retention should be made out, in accordance with the circular No. S. L. 1377. I shall have something to say about this Circular, later on.