STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURAJ MAL HOODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the writ petitioner (now respondent), quashed the order dated 29th March, 1988 (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) by which the writ petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. It was further directed that the petitioner should be reinstated back into service with all consequential benefits, including pay and allowances etc., and it was further held that the petitioner would be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the arrears of pay and allowances. A short order was passed on 14th February, 1990, to the above effect by the learned Single Judge and it was observed that detailed reasons shall follow. Later on, the detailed reasons were given.

(2.) The writ petitioner (now respondent) was working as Carcass, Leather and Marketing Officer in the Department of Industries, Haryana. After attaining the age of 55 years, he was sought to be prematurely retired in pursuance of the provisions contained in Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume-II and Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume I, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana. The last 10 years' Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner were as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_67_LAWS(P&H)10_1990_1.html</FRM>

(3.) In order to regulate exercise of powers of Premature Retirement under the above quoted Rules, the Haryana Government had issued instructions on 13th August, 1983. According to these instructions, it was laid down that extension in service beyond the age of 55 years would only be granted to those employee who have 70% or more Annual Confidential Reports in the last 10 years rated as 'good' or above. These instructions were struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in K.K. Vaid v. State of Haryana, 1990 1 SLR 1. It was further held by the Division Bench that as far as the average report is concerned, it could not be taken as adverse against an officer and on that basis he could not be prematurely retired. The learned Single Judge applied the principle laid down in K.K. Vaid's case to the facts of the present case and held that the petitioner could not be prematurely retired on the basis of his record for the last 10 years. We find no fault with the findings of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able be pursuade us to take a different view in the matter as the same is squarely covered by the law laid down in K.K. Vaid' case . However, the learned counsel for the State-appellant has urged that the Single Judge has observed in his judgment that in K.K Vaid's case it lays down that the average reports are to be treated as good. He contends that the division Bench in K.K. Vaid's case had not laid down that average report is to be treated as good, but only laid down that the average report is not to be treated as bad or adverse and, consequently, an officer could not be retired prematurely, on the basis of average reports. We find that to be so. So as a matter of clarification, we may observe that the learned Single Judge was not correct in observing that K.K. Vaid's case lays down that the average report is to be treated as good. The said authority only laid down that the average report is not to be treated as bad or adverse for the purpose of prematurely retiring an officer.