MUZAFFAR AHMAD KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner - Muzaffar Ahmad Khan came to be compulsorily retired in terms of Government order No. 469-GAD of 2005 dated 26th of April' 2005, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. The Petitioner has challenged the same on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. Respondents have filed the reply and have resisted the petition on the grounds taken therein.

(2.) The question which arises for decision is as to whether the aforementioned impugned compulsory retirement order is legally correct? The Apex Court and this Court in various cases reported as Baldev Raj Chandra v. Union of India, 1980 4 SCC 321, Baldev Raj Chandra v. Union of India, 1981 AIR(SC) 70, H.C. Gagri v. State of Haryana, 1987 AIR(SC) 65, Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, 1987 AIR(SC) 948, Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, 1989 AIR(SC) 2218, Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1990 3 SCC 504, Union of India v. Dulal Dutt, 1993 2 SCC 179, S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp3 SCC 424, State of J & K v. Jia Lal Gupta,1994 SLJ 234, Chief General Manager, SBI v. Suresh Chandra Behera, 1995 AIR(SC) 1745, K.K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India, 1996 AIR(SC) 277, Allahabad Bank Officers Association v. Allahabad Bank, 1996 4 SCC 504, M.S. Bindra v. Union of India, 1998 7 SCC 310, M.S. Bindra v. Union of India, 1998 AIR(SC) 3058, State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999 1 SCC 529, State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 AIR(SC) 1109, State of U.P v. Chater Sen, 2005 9 SCC 592, Pritam Singh v. Union of India, 2005 9 SCC 748, Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of J & K and Ors.,2005 4 JKJ 116-HC LPA Nos. 27J and 28J of 2005 decided on 5-8-2005, Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan v. State of J & K and Ors.,2006 3 JKJ 240(HC), Shah Latief v. State of J & K and Ors., 2006 1 JKJ 486 HC (DB), Rajesh Gupta v. State of J & K and Ors., 2008 1 JKJ 573HC. and SWP No. 828 and other bunch of petitions titled Zareena Banoo & connected matters v. State and Ors., 2008 3 JKJ 106 date of decision 6-6-2008; Janak Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir,2009 1 JKJ 588HC. and SWP 530/2005 titled Ram Dass v. State and Ors. have discussed in the detail the principles in order to test whether the order of compulsory retirement is legally tenable or otherwise.

(3.) It is the beaten law of the land that compulsory retirement is not a punishment at all and cannot be questioned by way of writ petitions, except as per guidelines and tests laid down by the judicial pronouncements. Apex Court in case Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, 1992 AIR(SC) 1020 laid down the following principles: