ER K C VERMA CHIEF ENGINEER DESIGNS PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CHANDIGARH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, K.C. Verma, after graduating in B.Tech. (Hon's) Degree in Civil Engineering in First Class from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, joined the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the Board) as Assistant Engineer (Civil), on Ist August, 1959. According to him, he was given higher start with two advance increments in recognition of his qualifications and merit secured by him in the interview conducted by the Board. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 11th September, 1962, and was further promoted as Executive Engineer on 9th December, 1965. On 30th March, 1976, he attained the rank of Superintending Engineer and on 12th January, 1989 vide Annexure P.9 to the writ petition, he was promoted as Chief Engineer (Civil) by the Broad in the Hydel Designs, Chandigarh. The Board passed orders on 30th May, 1990 (Annexure P.1) prematurely retiring the petitioner under the Punjab State Electricity Board Service (Premature Retirement Regulations) 1982, after the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years. The petitioner was given three months pay in lieu of the notice, so that the premature retirement came into effect immediately on the passing of the order. The petitioner impugned the premature retirement order by may of the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner in his writ petition has mentioned about his achievements while working in the Board. It is no necessary to quote the same. In para 20 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that a criterion has been laid down by the Board that for a selection post an officer shall be considered fit only if he has five year's good/excellent record of service prior to the date of consideration. The petitioner further mention in the same para that his record was good/very good/outstanding and it was after consideration of his past record and merit, as well as his achievements that he was selected as a Chief Engineer on 12th January, 1989. According to him, he was considered the best for this post out of the penal of three officers. The petitioner has further levelled mala-fides against Mr. N.S. Vasant, Chairman of the Board, but for the view we are taking in the matter it is not necessary to advert to those allegations at all.

(3.) It has also been mentioned in the written statement that the case of the petitioner with regard to his retention/retirement from service beyond the age of 55 years was reviewed by the Board well before he had attained the age of 55 years. Because of the pendency of two disciplinary cases against the petitioner, the Board deferred its decision and decided to consider the same on the finalisation of the disciplinary cases. Out of the two cases, once case was dropped and the other disciplinary case was placed before the Board vide Memo, dated 23rd April, 1990, which was included in the Agenda of the Board's meeting which was to be held on 29th May, 1990.