RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 4720 of 1994 is allowed.

(2.) This petition involves a challenge to the order of retirement Annexure P-1 dated 29.4.1993 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, retiring the petitioner under rule 3.26(d) of the Civil Service Rules read with rule 5.32-A(C). The petitioner has also questioned the legality of Annexure P-3 dated 19th November, 1991, issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana in relation to the premature retirement of employees attaining the age of fifty years or fifty-five years. The petitioner has prayed that the impugned order as well as the instructions be quashed and he be ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as J.B.T. teacher on 1.11.1955. He was promoted as Hindi Teacher on 11.1.1967. Till the date of issue of order of his retirement i.e. 29.4.1993, he was not served with any adverse remark in his confidential reports nor was he punished in any disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner has stated that he has always been allowed to cross efficiency bar. The petitioner has made reference to instructions issued by the Government of Haryana (Annexure P-2) for retention in service beyond fifty-five years to only those persons who have 70% good reports in the last ten years. He has pleaded that these instructions have been struck down by this court in K.K. Vaid's case 1990(1) SLR 1 and that decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court. He has also made reference to circular Annexure 7-3 dated 19.11.1991 issued by the chief Secretary to Government of Haryana laying down guidelines for exercise of the power under the provisions relating to compulsory retirement. Petitioner's plea is that on the basis of his unblamish record of service, he has a right to continue in service till the date of superannuation and that there was no material available with the respondents on the basis of which they could possibly form an opinion that the petitioner has out-lived his utility or that he has become a dead wood. His further plea is that on the basis of remarks made in his annual confidential reports, no person with reasonable prudence could have formed an opinion that the petitioner has out-lived his utility for public service.