NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while serving as a Patwari Halqa Nehri, Tehsil and District Sonepat was ordered to retire in the public interest on attaining the age of 55 years, with effect from Oct. 1, 1988 vide order of respondent No. 3 dated 19th Aug., 1988, Annexure P/1. This order was passed under the provisions of Rules 5.32 (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and 3.26 (d) of the aforesaid Rules, Volume I, Part 1, as applicable to the State of Haryana, mainly on the ground that since the work and conduct of the petitioner was 'average' and 70 per cent annual confidential reports during the last ten years were not good, so he was not entitled to further extension of three years beyond the age of 55 years.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is contrary to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in K.K. Vaid Vs. State of Haryana, 1990 (1) S.L.R. 1 in which the Haryana Government instructions on the basis of which the petitioner has been prematurely retired, were struck down. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the State of Haryana had decided to give extension beyond the age of 55 years only to those employees whose past ten years' annual confidential reports are 70 per cent good or above.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made at the bar. In K.K. Vaid's case (supra), the executive instructions issued by the State of Haryana that only the officer/official having more than 70 per cent'good'or above reports is entitled to continue in service after attaining the age of 55 years were held to be violative of Rule 3.26 (a) and (d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I. It was further held in the slid case that "although note (1) to clause (B) of Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, entitled the State Government to retire a Government servant who has completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension without giving any reason, but on account of inefficiency, dishonesty, corruption or infamous conduct, note (2) made it incumbent upon the Government to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action and not to retire the employee without the approval of Counsel of Ministers."