RULDA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that the order had been passed without setting out any kind of reason. Referring to the relevant Rule 3.26, where the appointing authority could compulsory retire an employee after issuing a notice, three months in advance only in public interest, in this case, the impugned order of compulsory retirement made on 16.6.1987 and the notice that preceded on 9.3.1987, made no reference to the termination of service as obtaining for public interest and hence invalid.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to judgment of Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Ors., 1981 AIR(SC) 70 that in the case of compulsory retirement, it shall be the duty of the administration to show that the compulsory retirement became necessary in public interest. Sounding of an impassioned plea on behalf of a person in twilight years of service, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

(3.) The case has been of the year 1989 and to this date, there has been no response at all. There is no written plea to justify the action and how the compulsory retirement came about without considering the issue of public interest, as required to be spelled out by the relevant Rule referred to above.