BHALE RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure P-3), vide which he had been prematurely retired from service w.e.f. 19.10.2010 after attaining the age of 56 years.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Haryana Roadways on 15.1.1976 and his services were regularised on 11.9.1976. The petitioner completed 55 years on 7.8.2009 and was to retire on 7.8.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was allowed to work after the age of 55 years but later on ordered to be retired at the age of 56 years on the direction given by the higher authorities without application of mind by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways.

(3.) Mr. C.M Chopra, counsel for the petitioner has referred to instructions dated 16.8.1983 (Annexure P-4). As per these instructions, to retain an employee in service after 55 years, his last 10 years confidential reports are to be seen and out of which 70% reports should be good. In the present case, the respondents have taken into consideration the ACR for the year 1999-2000 (Annexure P-5) wherein his integrity was doubted and on the basis of which the impugned order of premature retirement dated 12.10.2010 has been passed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should have considered the reports from the period 2000-2001 onwards, wherein integrity of the petitioner has not been doubted. The petitioner had never been conveyed any adverse remarks in these reports. As per the Haryana Government Instructions (Annexure P-4) ACR prior to the period 2000-01 would not be significant for consideration of the case of the petitioner for premature retirement. Even if the overall record of an employee has to be taken into consideration, the entries beyond 10 years have to be ignored. While referring to the ACR (Annexure P-5), wherein integrity of the petitioner has been doubted and overall grading is 'Average', he has referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1984 of 1987 titled, 'Faquir Chand Aggarwal v. State of Haryana' decided on 21.1.1988 (Annexure P-7) to contend that when the integrity of a person is doubted then the overall report should have been 'below Average'.