YOGESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 29.11.1996 passed by the Government of Punjab, whereby Tarlochan Singh, respondent No. 3, was granted extension in service on the post of Chief Engineer (Drainage) for a period of one year after reaching the age of superannuation (58 years).

(2.) The petitioner, Yogesh Kumar, a resident of Chandigarh, has claimed to have filed the present writ petition in public interest so as to challenge the order of the Government on the ground that the said order had been passed on extraneous considerations and against the policy decision of the Government. The petitioner's case is that respondent No. 3 was working as Chief Engineer (Drainage) in the Public Works Department (Irrigation) in the Government of Punjab. He served as Chief Engineer for more than 5 years and was due to retire on 30.11.1996 on attaining the age of 58 years. Orders were issued by the Government of Punjab on 27.11.1996, retiring the aforesaid respondent and four other officers with effect from 30.11.1996 (afternoon). However, respondent No. 3 approached the then Chief Minister of Punjab and obtained an order on the same day (27.11.1996) in the form of a 'Note' (Annexure P-2) for extension of service for one year. The said order is said to have been issued in contravention of the Government circulars and instructions issued from time to time in connection with re-employment or an extension of service to a Government servant. As per those instructions and the circulars, a retiring Government employee was not to be re-employed or continued in service except on public ground and in a purely temporary capacity with the sanction of the competent authority. It was necessary to see that there were overriding grounds of public interest and also that other employees in service were not capable enough to take up the appointment in question. Re-employment was not to be considered as a reward for outstanding merit. Extension in service was to be granted by the Administrative Department concerned in consultation with the Department of Personnel and the Finance Department. A case of extension was required to be referred by the Administrative Department at least two months before the date of superannuation of the employee concerned.

(3.) Respondent No. 3, Tarlochan Singh, was granted extension, following the note of the Chief Minister of Punjab, vide order dated 27.11.1996 for a period of one year on the post of Chief Engineer (Drainage).