CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHAMAN Lal, the Plaintiff, has filed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dated September 18, 1985 dismissing his appeal filed against the judgment and (sic) of the trial Court dated February 10, 1983 whereby his suit was dismissed. The suit was filed for (sic) -ration that order of the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dated February 8, 1977 retiring him permanently from the post or Record Keeper was illegal, arbitrary, null and void.

(2.) THE Appellant was initially appointed as Stenographer in the erstwhile State of PEPSU. In February, 1956, he was confirmed. At the relevant time, he was working as Record Keeper at Bathinda from where he was relieved on February 14, 1977 under orders of the District and Sessions Judge dated February 8, 1977 compulsorily retiring him. The said order was challenged on different grounds. The suit was contested by the Defendants -State of Punjab, Punjab and Haryana High Court and the District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The order was stated to be perfectly valid, passed under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The order was passed in public interest. No flaw could be found with the said order on any such assertion as made in the plaint. The validity of the notice served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also challenged. In the replication, the Plaintiff -Appellant reiterated his stand. The following issues were tried in the case:

(3.) ON behalf of the Appellant, reference has been made to the instructions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, - -vide letter dated September 20, 1979 giving guidance for the premature retirement of Judicial Officers and employees subject to the control of the High Court. In nutshell, the guidelines provide for consideration of cases for determining suitability for retention in service four months before the due date i.e., completion of 25 years qualifying service or attaining the age of 55 years. Further, for considering suitability the entire service record with particular reference to such record pertaining to preceding five years is to be considered. Adverse remarks prior to the previous promotion were not to be considered. A person getting B plus (Good) grading be allowed to continue in service. It is further provided that once a decision is taken to retain a member of the staff beyond the specified period, ordinarily the employee would be allowed to continue in service till next review unless some adverse reports concerning his integrity, effectiveness, competency or otherwise rendering his retention in service not to be in public interest comes to the notice. The contention of Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that since admittedly the service record of the Appellant was good throughout, he was entitled to be retained in service. The adverse entry recorded in the last year of his service was in fact recorded after the order or retirement and was of no consequence. After giving due consideration to this aspect, I find that contention of counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted. Present is not a case of consideration of the service record for purposes of determining suitability of the Appellant for retention in service beyond the due date. In spite of the instructions, referred to above, it was within the competence of the competent authority to compulsorily retire an employee of the Court subordinate to the High Court if it was considered in the public interest. Present is a case which falls in the latter category. The said power under Sub -rule (3) of the Rules is only channelised by the instructions and is not abridged. If the competent authority considers that it will not be in the interest of the public to retain an employee beyond the' due date i.e. after completion of 25 years of qualifying service without assigning any reasons, such an order could be passed and it was so passed in the present case. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to certain judicial decisions where order of retirement was passed on review of the annual confidential reports and the criteria or the guidelines given by the State were not adhered to and the appropriate relief was granted by the Court holding the order of compulsory retirement as illegal. I may briefly notice those cases. In Hira Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 (2) S.L.R. 627, the employee was allowed to cross the efficiency bar and adverse entries which were earlier recorded, it was held, could not be used against the delinquent officer subsequently. In S.S. Malhotra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988 (3) S.L.J. (CAT) 619, a few months before the order of retirement was passed, the employee was allowed to cross the efficiency bar and there was nothing coming on the record against him thereafter which could be considered as adverse for compulsorily retiring him. The order was held to be unjust and arbitrary and was set aside.