PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated March 21, 1989, by which he was ordered to be retired on attaining the age of 55 years. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner avers that he was working against the post of Superintendent in Rural Artisan Training Centre, Sohna, when he was placed under suspension, vide order dated Jan. 14, 1974. Ultimately, the petitioner was tried in 15 cases and vide order dated Sept. 18, 1984, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hansi acquitted the petitioner in all the cases. He was still not reinstated. The petitioner represented for the payment of subsistence allowance, etc. The needful was not done. Consequently, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8811 of 1987, which was admitted and is still pending in this court. During the pendency of this petition, the Government passed an order dated March 21, 1989, by which the petitioner was given a notice that he shall retire from service on the expiry of three months from the date of the receipt of the notice. This order has been challenged by the petitioner inter alia on the grounds of being arbitrary, penal and violative of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The writ petition had come up for motion hearing on April 12, 1989. The court had directed the issue of notice of motion to the respondents. The case then came up for hearing on May 17, 1989, when the learned Assistant Advocate-General, appearing for the State, prayed for time to file the written statement. The request was granted and the case was adjourned to June 6, 1989. No written statement was filed. The writ petition was admitted and ordered to be set down for hearing on Aug. 18, 1989. Somehow, it appears that the petition was not taken up for hearing. The petitioner then filed C.M. Application No. 5825 of 1991 praying for the release of all the retiral benefits. Notice of this Misc. application was given to the Advocate-General, Haryana. It was directed that the writ petition be listed for hearing along with the application for final disposal. Still no reply was filed. The vide order dated Nov. 30, 1992 passed in CM Application No. 1 of 1992, it was directed that the case be listed for hearing on Jan. 4, 1993. The case was accordingly listed on that date. Mr. Arun Nehra, Additional Advocate-General Haryana, had appeared and made a request for a short adjournment to enable the respondents to file a written statement. The case was accordingly adjourned to Jan. 18, 1993. Still no written statement was filed. Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, states that in spite of a letter dated Jan. 13, 1993, and three messages having been given to the Department of Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, Chandigarh by the office of the respondents no one has come on behalf of the respondents even with the personal file of the petitioner. In this situation, there is no alternative except to assume that the facts stated in the writ petition are correct.