SATISH KUMAR KHURANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the action of the respondents in ordering the premature retirement of the petitioner vide order dated December 23, 1992 legal and valid? This is the shon question that arises in this case. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was selected for appointment as a temporary Enjneer in January 1966. On January 15,1966, he was deputed for six months' training. On July 15, 1966, he was appointed as temporary Engineer and was finally allocated to the State of Haryana. He was promoted as an Executive Engineer in the year 1978. While he was working as such, the order of his premature retirement was issued by the Government vide letter dated December 23,1992. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. Since the Motion Bench had vide its order dated January 15,1993 stayed the operation of the impugned order, the petitioner has continued to hold the post of Executive Engineer.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is - was there any material on the basis of which the competent authority could have arrived at the conclusion that it was in public interest to prematurely retire the petitioner.