BELA RAM CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 12.9.1997 of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Transfer Application No.158/87 filed by the petitioner calling in question the order of his premature retirement by the respondents dated May 31, 1986 under the H.P. Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as Patwari candidate in the erstwhile Mahasu District after passing prescribed examinations in the year 1951. He was confirmed as Patwari in the year 958 and later on confirmed as Revenue Assistant in the year 1960. On bifurcation of Districts in the State of H.P., new District Kinnaur was formed and the petitioner was selected as Kanungo in District Kinnaur in the year 1961. He was reverted as Patwari by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur on 28.4.1966. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his reversion order was not decided by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner filed CWP No. 54 of 1969 in the High Court of Delhi (Himachal Bench) at Shimla which was accepted on 23.10.1970 setting aside the reversion of the petitioner and declaring him to have continued as Office Kanungo in District Kinnaur.

(2.) The petitioner states that he has qualified Naib -Tehsildari Examination in the year 1965. He was due for further promotion as Naib -Tehsildar, but was not promoted. He submitted many representations to the authority for his promotion. It was on 12.4.1983 when the petitioner was promoted as Officiating Naib -Tehsildar and was posted as Naib -Tehsildar Forest Settlement with Headquarters at Nichar. On 23.3.1985, the petitioner filed application under the provisions of H.P. Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976 (for short Premature Retirement Rules, 1976) on the ground that he had_ completed 30 years of service.

(3.) Further case of the petitioner is that he has submitted many representations to the authority requesting it to implement the decision of this Court in CWP No. 54 of 1969. It was on 31.3.1986 when Commissioner, Shimla Division respondent No. 2 herein in exercise of powers under Rule 3 of Premature Retirement Rules, 1976 had ordered premature retirement of the petitioner vide order dated 31.3.1986 a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P -2. Against the said order, the petitioner submitted representation dated 4.4.1986 to respondent No. 2, a copy whereof is placed on record as mark Annexure P -3 for his re -instatement in the service. The petitioner filed second CWP No. 235 of 1986 in this Court which was subsequently transferred to learned Tribunal. In the Transfer Application No. 158/87, the petitioner has challenged his premature retirement inter -alia on the grounds that the order was not in public interest, the petitioner was not conveyed any adverse remarks recorded in his ACR, the order was in violation of principles of natural justice against the provisions of Rule -3(1) Premature Retirement Rules, 1976, as the petitioner had not completed 30 years of qualifying service nor he has completed the age of 55 years.