LAKSHMI CHANDRA AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order, Annexure P. 6, whereby the Petitioner was retired from service on his attaining the age of50 years.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the State of Haryana. He was served with a notice dated September 24, 1975, Annexure P. 6, under Rule 5.32 (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (hereinafter called the Rules) to the effect that he shall stand retired from Government service on the completion of three months from the date of its receipt by him. The validity of this order has been impugned on three grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the age of superannuation, according to Rule 3.26 of the Rules Vol. I is 58 years and the provisions of this rule cannot be circumvented by the provision of rule 5.32 (c) of Volume II. There is no merit in this contention. The validity of the power of the Government under rule 5.32 (c) has been consistently upheld by this Court in various cases, the latest being Civil Writ Petition No. 600 of 1975 (M.R. Malhotra v. The State of Haryana and Ors.) decided on December 22, 1976-.

(3.) It was next contended that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and on the basis of some adverse entries against which the representation of the petitioner was still pending. As regards the representation of the petitioner, the same admittedly had been rejected during the pendency of the petition and the petitioner had challenged that order also by way of this amended petition. However, at the time of arguments, nothing was urged to challenge the order rejecting his representation.