BASANTA KUMAR PAL Vs. CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short point involved in this appeal has been argued shortly.

(2.) The appellant, Basanta Kumar Pal, entered service under the old East Bengal Railway on 6-9-1919 as, according to himself, a clerk, but as, according to respondent No. 1, a Fitter. There is, however, no dispute that in October, 1920, he was confirmed in a post of a Clerk under the Railway. After the Partition of India in 1947, he opted for the Dominion of India and his services having been transferred to the East Indian Railway, he was posted under the District Electrical Engineer, Dhanbad. It was there that he continued to serve till the date of his retirement.

(3.) The appellant was due to reach his fifty-fifth year on 1-7-1950. On 19-5-1919, he received a notice, dated the 18th May, by which he was informed that it was proposed to retire him from service on his attaining the age of fifty-five years and that if he disired to make any representation against such retirement, it would be considered before final orders were passed. Immediately on receiving that notice, the appellant addressed a letter to the District Electrical Engineer and prayed that since he was going to be retired, his leave and Provident Fund accounts might be adjusted and that the earliest possible action might be taken in that behalf. Although he sent that letter, which seemed to suggest that he was accepting the proposal for his retirement, he sent a representation on 10-6-1949, against the proposal to retire him. In that representation he stated that he was still capable of performing the normal duties of his Office and, therefore, he might be permitted to continue in service. The representation was forwarded by the District Electrical Engineer with a recommendation that the appellant might be granted an extension of service, subject to his being declared physically fit by the Medical Department, but the Chief Electrical Engineer, who was the final authority in the matter, was not prepared to accept the recommendation. By a note sent to the District Electrical Engineer, he informed him that he saw no reason why a special case should be made out for the retention of the appellant in the service and why a recommendation for his retention should be sent to Deputy General Manager (P), as required by SL. No. 1377. SL. No. 1377, I may point out, provided that, generally, a special case would have to be made out in each instance in which it was recommended that an employee should be retained in service after he had attained the age of fifty-five years, The decision not to retain him further apparently came to the knowledge of the appellant, because it appears that on 29-4-1950, he preferred an appeal to the General Manager of the East Indian Railway. His petition appeal was not forwarded by the Chief Electrical Engineer on the ground that unless some strong reason could be shown, it would serve no useful purpose to forward the application to the General Manager. The appellant was informed of the decision on 27-6-1950 and as nothing further happened between that date and the date on which he attained the age of superannuation, he had to retire and did retire on the 1st of July following.