STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. CHINT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-writ petitioner, who was otherwise to retire on 31.5.1989 on superannuation, was directed to be compulsoriiy retired vide Annexure P-1 dated 18.11.1988. It was stated that as the writ petitioner had attained the age of 55 years, it was not proper to retain him in service in the public interest. The aforesaid order of compulsoriiy retiring the petitioner was challenged by him in the Court on various grounds as incorporated in the writ petition filed. The writ petitioner had attributed malafides and claimed himself to be the Chairman of the Municipal Employees Union, Ludhiana. It was submitted that the order impugned in writ petition was passed with the object of forcing him to withdraw the petitions already filed by him.

(2.) It was further contended that the order impugned in the writ petition was against the provisions of law and government instructions issued in that behalf. The appellant-State had tried to justify the action with the submission that this Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the pleas raised, as it was within the competence of the State to retire any person at any time. It was contended that since the order im- pugned in the writ petition did not cast any stigma on the conduct and reputation of the writ petitioner, no relief could be granted to him.

(3.) After perusing the entire record, examining the case law on the subject and affording the parties opportunities to be heard the learned Single Judge vide his judgment impugned in this appeal came to the conclusion, as under :-