ASA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Master, in the Education Department is aggrieved by the order dated October 29, 1985 by which he was given notice of retirement on attaining the age of 55 years. He claims that during the last 10 years, he has not been communicated any adverse report except for the year 1983-84. He has challenged the order as being totally arbitrary and violative of the instructions issued by the Govt.

(2.) Along with the written statement filed by the respondent, a summary of the petitioner's record has been furnished. This reads as under :-

(3.) A perusal of the above would show that the reports for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 were not available. In the remaining reports, the petitioner had been originally assessed as 'Very Good' for the years 1978-79, 1979-80, and 1982-83. His performance has been judged as 'Excellent' for the year 1980-81. these assessments were revised on the basis of the results. As a consequence, the reports were changed. The fact remains that in the confidential reports, the petitioner had not earned even a single 'below average' report. On the basis of the results, overall grading had been changed. Even this grading does not make out that the petitioner was deadwood. He could not, as such be chopped off. Even otherwise whereas his reports were 'good' they were downgraded on the basis of the results. Once the performance of an employee is good, the result are not entirely in this hands. The results depend upon the interest taken by the students and the nature of papers set by the examiners. On an overall consideration of the matter, I am of the view that premature retirement of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The order at Annexure P.1 is consequently set aside. The petitioner should be deemed to have continued in service till the age of his superannuation and shall be paid all arrears of salary etc. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.