ATMA RAM SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Draftsman Grade-II on August 25, 1962 and on May 23, 1966 he was promoted as Draftsman Grade-I. He was confirmed as Draftsman Grade-I in October, 1976. The petitioner's date of birth is December 1, 1942, The normal age of superannuation is 58 years. As the petitioner was to complete 30 years of service on August 24,1992, his case for retention in service after completion of 30 years' service was considered and an order dated 23.4.92 (copy at Ann.P9) was passed by the Officiating Chief Engineer, Project Himank that he was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to prematurely retire the petitioner on his completing 30 years qualifying service w.e.f. August 25, 1992. This order was passed in exercise of the powers under Clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner filed a Review Petition against the order at Annexure P.9 and he was informed vide letter dated June 30, 1992 (An- nexure R.3 with the written statement) that the Review Committee had already taken all aspects/factors into consideration while arriving at its decision regarding premature retirement of the petitioner in public interest. He was further advised that if he still wanted to file any further representation, it may be addressed to the Chairman, Representation Committee, Secretariat DRDB, B Wing, 4th Floor, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. Petitioner did file such a representation to the Chairman, Representation Committee, which has, however, dismissed on October 31, 1992 (Annexure R.4 with the written statement). The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of premature retirement (Ann.P.9) and dismissal of his representations as aforesaid.

(2.) It may be observed here that while the petitioner was serving in the Headquarters, Chief Engineer, Project Beacon, he was sent on deputation to Indian Road Construction Company in Libya on June 12, 1984. He was posted to Headquarters 50 Border Road Task Force under Project 'Yatrik' vide order dated December 30, 1985 on repatriation from Indian Road Construction Company at Libya. However, he did not report there for duty and remained absent allegedly without leave. The Chief Engineer (Project) after conducting an enquiry against the petitioner discharged him from service vide order dated July 22,1989 w.e.f. November 02,1985 under Rules 12 and 19 of the CCS. (C.C & A.) Rules, 1965. Petitioner filed a representation-cum-appeal against the order of discharge. He was reinstated vide order dated November 19, 1990 and was posted at Headquarter 754 Border Road Task Force under Project Beacon. The interregnum period could not be regularised by the Headquarter, 754 Border Road Task Force due to nonavailability of a vacancy. The Border Road Task Force was disbanded in August, 1991 and the petitioner was posted to Headquarters Chief Engineer (P) Himank. During October, 1991, the case of the petitioner was again taken up with the General Reserve Engineer Force records by Ex-754 Border Roads Task Force for proforma posting for the interregnum period. On May 25,1992, an order of proforma posting of the petitioner was issued as under:-

(3.) It has been mentioned in the written statement that after the receipt of the order dated May 25, 1992, regarding proforma posting order of the petitioner, the Head Quarters Chief Engineer (P) Himank had taken up the case with the Chief Engineer, GREF, vide order dated June 26, 1992 to take expeditious action to regularise the services of the petitioner of the absence period. The counsel for the respondents has produced from his record a letter, passed during the pendency of the writ petition, dated December 11, 1993, issued by the Chief Engineer, (P) Himank mentioning therein that absence period from duty in respect of the petitioner from November 02, 1985 to Jan. 02, 1991 has been regularised by 50 BRTF and 49 BRTF as under:-