BASANTHA KUMAR PAL Vs. CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 fifty-fifth year on 1 July 1950, and he will reach his sixtieth year on 1 July 1955.

(2.) On 19 May 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 July 1950. He was further informed that, if he wished to make a representation, it would he duly considered before final orders were passed. On 19 May 1949, the petitioner wrote to the District Electrical Engineer, Dhanbad, requesting that his provident fund subscription and leave salary might be adjusted.

(3.) On 10 June 1949, he replied to the notice dated 19 May 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 July 1949 the District Electrical Engineer. 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 Chief Electrical Engineer, however, was not disposed to accept this recommendation. He replied on 19 August 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.