BAL KRISHAN HOODA Vs. SECRETARY-CURA- COMMISSIONER, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, HARYANA, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the joint Punjab on 15.1.1965 and on reorganisation of the State of Punjab, he was allocated to the State of Haryana on 1,11.1966. On 8.4.1991, Director of Secondary Education Haryana, Chandigarh issued a notice in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. I Part I read with Rule 532-A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Roles Vol. II (as applicable to the State of Haryana) and note thereunder that it had been decided to retire the petitioner from service after attaining the age of 55 years in public interest. It was mentioned in this notice that petitioner would retire on expiry of three months of the said notice. It is this notice, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P. 1 to the writ petition, that has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) The Date of Birth of the petitioner is 16th November, 1983 and in normal circumstances he would retire on 30th November, 1993 on attaining the age of 58 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of pre-maturely retiring the petitioner has been taken on the basis of the Haryana Government Instructions dated 16th August, 1983 according to which only such Government employees were to be retained in service after the age of 55 years if They had earned 70% good or better category of reports for the last ten years. The learned counsel further submits that these instructions have been specifically struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in K.K. Vaid vs. Stale of Haryana, 1990 1 RSJ 193. He has further submitted that according to K.K.. Vaid's case the average report cannot be considered as adverse to an employee and in fact average means not so good and not so bad. According to Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. I Part I read with Rule 532-A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II, only those persons are to be retired who have really become a dead wood and not those persons who may be just average.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been admitted that the action of pre-maturely retiring the petitioner has been taken in accordance with the instructions of the Haryana Government dated 16.8.1983 and since the petitioner's record for the last 10 years was not good or above to the extent of 70%, the petitioner had to be retired on attaining the age of 55 years. The petitioner's over-all grading for the last 10 years had been mentioned in para 4 of the written statement as follows :-