MOHINDER LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohinder Lal, through the present petition, seeks the setting aside of the order dated 18.6.1991 Annexure P4 passed by respondent No. 3, by which he was pre-maturely retired and issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give him all the benefits, which he would be entitled to received in case he had completed the service of 33 years.

(2.) The petitioner had joined service as Vehicle Mechanic and was promoted as Engineers Equipment Mechanic who was supposed to look after heavy vehicles like earth movers etc. He was sent on deputation on an assignment to Libya with Indian Road Construction Company and on return he was promoted as Superintendent Electrical Mechanical Grade II on 1.4.1987. He states that on account of some mis-understanding, which had taken place in the office in the year 1987, his annual confidential report was shown as "Below Average" but the same was reviewed and changed to "Average". Thereafter, all the reports from 1987 to 1990 except the last report were "good" because in July, 1990, he had developed some differences with respondent No. 4 when he refused to remove differential assembly of Tata Tipper and some Unserviceable articles were to be fitted on account of which respondent No. 4 wrote a special report wherein he had given adverse remarks to the petitioner. The personal meeting, which was requested for by the petitioner with his Unit Commander did not materialise and instead on 18.6.1991 order Annexure P4 by which he was pre-maturely retired was issued. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed an appeal/ representation, which was rejected vide order dated 7.4.1992 Annexure P9. It is these orders of voluntary retirement as well as the rejection of the appeal that the petitioner seeks to challenge on the ground that he had been retired ignoring all previous records and he should have been allowed to continue in service. He also submitted that the impugned order would be bad inasmuch as in case he had sought voluntary retirement after 30 years he would be entitled to have the pensionary benefit calculated as if he had put in 33 years of service, which have been denied to him on account of his being retired by the department. The impugned order has been passed without giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the stand taken by them was that while grading of the A.C.Rs for the year 1987 was "Average" and for the years 1988 and 1989 was "Good", for the year 1990 it was "Below Average" and the entire service record of the petitioner as extracted in Annexure R1 had been taken into consideration before denying him the retention in service after completion of 30 years of service. Accordingly, his services were dispensed with as per Rule 56 (j) (ii) of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (in short the rules'). It was also submitted that his case for retention was not recommended keeping in view the integrity certificate issued on 16.11.1990, by which Officiating Officer Commanding had graded his integrity as doubtful.