UNION OF INDIA Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is at the instance of the Union of India and its functionaries, and is directed against the order dated 4th February, 2005(Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.890 of 2002 (Arjun Singh vs. Union of India and others), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application preferred by the respondent herein.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be noticed. The respondent was appointed/engaged as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent cum- Mail Carrier on 21.1.953. In terms of the provision contained in the Post and Telegraphs Manual which incorporate the guidance and instructions of the offices of the Department of Posts, the respondent was made to execute a personal security bond as provided under rule 192 of the said Manual, extracts whereof has been appended as Annexure-3 to the instant writ petition. The respondent did execute the aforesaid bond on 27.3.1953 (Annexure-4). The postal authorities by a communication dated 7.4.2000 (Annexure-7), informed the respondent that he shall be completing 65 years of age on 21.1.2000, and as such he should make over charge of the office with effect from 20.4.2000. The said communication further disclosed that the official record including the gradation list records his date of birth as 21.1.1935. The matter thereafter remained pending for some time and ultimately, by a communication dated 15.11.2001 (Annexure-8), he was made to retire from the service with effect from 30.11.2001. The respondent assailed the aforesaid action of the authorities by filing O.A. No.797 of 2001. The Tribunal by order dated 11.12.2001 (Annexure-9), disposed of the said application directing the respondent authorities to treat the said original application as representation and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The representation of the respondent was considered by the respondent authorities (writ petitioner herein), and by order dated 27th of March, 2002, the same was rejected by a reasoned order (Annexure-10). The respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal calling in question the aforesaid order dated 27th of March, 2002 (Annexure-10) in O.A. No.890 of 2002, which has been allowed by the impugned order and hence the writ petition at the instance of the postal authorities.

(3.) While assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent admittedly entered into the service on 21.1.1953, and executed a personal security bond which according to the rules has to be executed by a person who has attained majority. He drew attention of the Court to the note appended to rule 192 of the extract of the manual (Annexure-3), which reads as under: