K.K. GANDHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure P-1) and 19.1.1993 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to have retired from service prematurely on completion of 55 years of age.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who was working as a Clerk/Accounts Clerks with effect from 2.2.1959 in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Hissar (for short 'the BDPO') was conveyed the adverse remarks recorded by the BDPO in the Annual Confidential Report (for short 'the ACR') for the financial year 1982-83. The petitioner represented against the communication of the adverse remarks. The Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, accepted his representation and expunged the adverse remarks conveyed to him vide order dated 22.4.1987 (Annexure P-6). As a result of the expunction of the adverse remarks, the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar, which was due to him with effect from 1.4.1983. The petitioner was also given adverse remarks in the A.C.R. for the year 1988-89 against which he made a representation on 15.3.1990. The representation was accepted by the Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rural Development & Panchayat Department, vide order dated 22.2.1991 (Annexure P-10) and the honesty and overall assessment of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as 'Good'. Thereafter, the petitioner was sanctioned the Selection Grade vide order dated 31.1.1991 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Joint Secretary of the Department. Despite the fact that he was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1.4.1983 and was also granted Selection Grade vide order dated 31.1.1991, to his utter dismay, the petitioner was given three months' notice for premature retirement on completion of 55 years of service vide order dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure P-1), the background for which was that he was given adverse remarks in the A.C.R. for the year 1982-83. The petitioner represented against his premature retirement. However, vide order dated 3.1.1992 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Joint Secretary, the operation of three months' notice for retirement was stayed. However, vide order dated 19.1.1993 (Annexure P-2), the stay granted vide order dated 3.1.1992 was vacated and it was ordered by the Joint Secretary that the petitioner would stand retired from government service on the expiry of three months' period from the date of the order. The orders dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure P-1) and 19.1.1993 (Annexure P-2) are under challenge in the present writ petition and prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner that he be retired from service on attainment of 58 years of age and not earlier to that.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the adverse remarks given in the A.C.R. for the year 1982-83 had been expunged by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 22.4.1987 (Annexure P-6) and the petitioner had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.4.1983 and also he was granted the Selection Grade vide order dated 1.2.1991, there was no occasion for the respondent to retire the petitioner prematurely by giving him three months' notice immediately thereafter vide order dated 25.10.1991.