KISHORI CHARAN MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner 's date of birth is 15th of September 1908. He joined Government service as a paid probationer in the Registration Department in 1929 and was confirmed on 14 -2 -1931 as a Lower Division Clerk under the Bihar and Orissa Government. After separation of the Province in 1936, he remained in Orissa Government service. He reached the superannuation age of 55 years on 14 -9 -1963. On 3rd July 1963 the District Registrar gave him notice for retirement in the following terms:

(2.) IT is the common case of the parties that Rule 71(b) covers the case of the Petitioner 's retirement. On the counter affidavit that the Petitioner did not continue to be efficient, he was rightly retired at the age of 55. At the appropriate time the Petitioner 's case was considered and be was made to retire at the age of 55. In such a case the age of superannuation even under Rule 71(b) is 55. The exercise of the power in this case is not arbitrary or capricious. The principles laid down in Lingaraj Patnaik and Ors. v. District Judge of Cuttack and Ors., 1971 C.L.T. 1, apply to this case. As was observed in that case, after the age of 55 is reached by the servant the authority has to exercise its discretion whether or not to retain and there is no right in the servant to be retained even if he continues to be efficient.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. Patra that the notice (Annexure -3) does not indicate that the concerned authority of applied its mind to the facts of the case in accordance with Rule 71(b). This contention has no force. Notice, is required to be given under Rule 71(b). Even if one is given for the convenience of the servant the reason that mind was applied with reference to Rule 71(b) is not required to be stated therein. That is a matter which is to be, dealt with in the official file by the appropriate authority.