DEBENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, who was the Head Assistant in the Waste Land Reclamation section of the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar, and was served with an order of the Director, Waste Land Reclamation, to retire compulsorily with effect from the 11th November, 1958. He instituted the suit on the 30th November, 1989, for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts are these; the plaintiff was originally serving as a Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Patna Range, and in the normal course, he was due to retire with effect from the 31st October, 1956, on attaining the age of 88 years. On the 6th June, 1948, however, he was appointed is an Upper Division Assistant in the Land Reforms section of the Revenue Department in the pay scale of Rs. 130--12--250. On the 11th August. 1950, he was promoted to the post of the Head Assistant in the Waste Land Reclamation section (vide Ex. 5/gha). His post was upgraded with effect from the 1st January, 1936, and it carried a pay scale of Rs. 345--15--400. On the 19th March, 1956, an order was passed by the Director, Waste Land Reclamation, in the following terms: "Subject : Extension of terms of appointment of the officers and staff under the Directorate of Waste Land Reclamation up to the end of the Second Five Year Plan. The terms of appointment in respect of the following officers and staff under the Directorate of Waste Land Reclamation is extended for a further period of five year, i.e., up to the end of the Second Five Year Plan (i.e., 28-2-1901), as sanctioned in Government order No. IV-100/55-472-W.L.R., dated 15-3-1956. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_186_AIR(PAT)_1965Html1.htm</FRM> Sd. S.C. Mukherjee Director Waste Land Reclamation, This document, which is on the record as Ex. 1, contained a full and comprehensive list of the entire staff consisting of 96 employees attached to the Headquarters at Patna, right from the Deputy Director to the peons who were then serving in the Waste Land Reclamation section. By a subsequent order of the Government, the Directorate of Waste Land Reclamation was placed on a permanent basis with effect from the 1st April, 1956 (vide Ext. Kha/2). With effect from the 11th March, 1958, the plaintiff proceeded on leave for eight months on medical grounds, and, while he was still on leave, an order was passed on the 21st July, 1958, for his reversion to the Agriculture Department with effect from the 11th November, 1958, which was the date of the expiry of his leave. But the Joint Director of Agriculture wrote a letter on the 5th November, 1958 (Ext. 4/kha) to the Director, Waste Land Reclamation, saying that the plaintiff had already attained the age of superannuation in October, 1956, and, as such, the question of retaining a post for him in the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture to enable him to revert to the said post could not now arise. It was also mentioned in the said letter (Ext. 4/kha) that the order contained in Exhibit 1 had been passed without consulting the Deputy Director of Agriculture, in whose office the plaintiff held substantively the post of a permanent clerk. Against the order of his reversion to the Agriculture Department, the plaintiff filed a representation to the Revenue Minister, but Exhibit Ka, which is dated the 29th March, 1959, shows that "his representation dated the 4th September, 1958 addressed to Minister (Revenue) for retention in the temporary post of Head Assistant, Waste Land Reclamation, beyond the 10th November, 1958, after superannuation on the 31st October, 1956", was rejected. Exhibit Ka/1, dated the 23rd September, 1959, shows that the plaintiff made another representation on the 11th April, 1959, to the Chief Minister, which was also rejected. In the meantime, on the 8th/9th April, 1959, the Director, Waste Land Reclamation wrote the following letter (Ext. Ka/2) to the plaintiff;

(3.) In substance, the case of the plaintiff is that the order of his compulsory retirement contained in Exhibit Ka/2 is illegal and invalid on principally three grounds.