STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HAKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent Hakam Singh was a Senior Clerk posted in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, when he was served with three months notice of compulsory retirement on November 1, 1983 and was actually retired from service on its basis with effect from January 31, 1984 (afternoon). Contention made and accepted as basis for their decision by the learned two Courts below was that vide order Exhibit P-1 dated January 10, 1980 plaintiff respondent had been allowed by defendant-appellant to cross the efficiency bar with effect from January 1, 1978, raising his pay to Rs. 218/- instead of Rs. 210/- in the scale of Rs. 110-4-130/5-180-6-210/8-250 and there was nothing adverse against plaintiff-respondent with defendant-appellant for the period thereafter to base the order of premature compulsory retirement thereon.

(2.) Kiran Bihari Lal v. State of U.P.,1976 SLR 567; Hira Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,1981 2 SLR 627 and Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and others, 1981 AIR(SC) 70. are all authorities for the view that the compulsory retirement order of plaintiff-respondent having been based by defendant-appellant on adverse material prior to the date, on which plaintiff-respondent was allowed to cross the efficiency bar viz. January 10, 1980, could not legally form the basis of the impugned order. Concurrent finding recorded by the learned two Courts below in this behalf is thus affirmed.

(3.) There is thus no merit in the State appeal. It, therefore, fails and is consequently dismissed. Defendant-appellant shall pay to plaintiff-respondent the costs of this litigation throughout. Counsel fee assessed at Rs. 500/- only.