DHARAM PAUL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Point in issue in the present writ petition remains of academic importance for us as well as for the petitioner in view of the stay order dated 8.11.1995 granted by this court whereby it was ordered that the petitioner would not be prematurely retired on the basis of the impugned notice dated 5.8.1995 issued by Respondent No. 2 as the petitioner was otherwise going to retire on the 31st March, 1996.

(2.) Dharam Paul, the present petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari mandamus praying that the notice dated 5.8.1995 of premature, compulsory retirement be quashed and respondent No. 2 be called upon to restore the full pay of the petitioner consequent upon the favourable appellate order and for the grant of additional PROP increments due to the petitioner besides his placement in the revised pay scale effective from 1.9.1994.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is against the alleged mala fide order dated 3.8.1995 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner was served with a three months' notice of premature, compulsory retirement. According to the petitioner, the impugned notice cannot be said to be in public interest for the reason that the last ten reports of the petitioner were very good and even outstanding. Otherwise also the said notice has been issued on 14.8.1995, calling upon the petitioner to be relieved on 14.11.1995 which as 4-1/2 months ahead of the date of superannuation i.e. 31.3. 1996. This action on the part of the respondents cannot be said to have been passed in public interest.