STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HARI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana is in second appeal before this Court impugning the judgements and decree of the courts below, whereby the order of compulsory retirement passed against the plaintiff-respondent has been held to be bad in law and the suit for the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed in his favour thereby holding him to be entitled to continue in service till the age of 58 years.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent, who was working on the post of Forester with the State of Haryana instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the three months notice-cum-retirement order dated 19.9.2005, subsequent order of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 18.12.2005 as also the order dated 11.12.2005, whereby his appeal has been rejected, are bad in law, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and contrary to the instructions issued by the Govt. of Haryana regulating the exercise of power with regard to the issue of compulsory retirement. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent had joined service on 22.6.1971 on a regular basis against the post of Guard. On 1.12.1983 he was promoted to the post of Forester. It was further pleaded that the State Govt. had taken a decision to compulsorily retire him by passing the impugned order and the same had been passed without any basis, and the same was contrary to the Govt. instructions on the subject. The defendant filed a written statement taking a stand that the service record of the plaintiff was not satisfactory as he had been involved in illicit falling of Govt. trees. It was also contended by the State Govt. that an employee is required to earn 70% Good A.C.Rs in the last 10 years up to the age of 55 years and it is only upon achieving such benchmark that he could be retained in service. That apart, a preliminary objection was also raised to the effect that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in as much as it could not act as a Court of Appeal and substitute its own opinion in place of the employer as regards retention of an employee beyond 55 years of age is concerned.

(3.) After appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties and having heard the respective counsel, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed, the impugned orders were held to be bad in law and he was held entitled to continue in service up to the age of 58 years along with consequential benefits in the nature of salary and other allowances. The State of Haryana being aggrieved of the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hisar filed a civil appeal before the learned District Judge, Hisar. Vide impugned judgement dated 16.12.2010 the findings of the trial court have been affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal at the hands of the State of Haryana before this Court.