JAGDISH PRASHAD Vs. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, YAMUNANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 4.11.2003 (P-5) passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yamunagar at Jagadhari, retiring the petitioner compulsorily on his attaining the age of 55 years. The petitioner is a Waterman and belongs to Class-IV category of employee.

(2.) Brief facts are necessary to put the whole controversy in its right perspective. The petitioner was initially appointed as Waterman on 1.9.1970 and his date of birth as per service record is 4.4.1949. He was confirmed as such on 7.6.2003 and was retired from service vide order dated 4.11.2003 as Waterman. Before retiring him compulsorily, a notice was issued to him on 28.10.2003, which is duly replied by him on 3.11.2003. After considering his reply, the District and Sessions Judge retired him compulsorily from service by passing the impugned order, which reads as under :-

(3.) Mr. Hari Om Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner has been retired by invoking Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana), which in fact does not apply to a member of Class-IV category. According to the learned counsel, the proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 3.26 clearly stipulates the age of superannuation for Class-IV employee to be 60 years and Class-IV employee could not be retired before the age of superannuation.