STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Vs. GAUTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 26/12/2017 delivered by the learned Single Bench in SWP No.723/2005, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, bearing No.480-GAD of 2005 dtd. 26/4/2005 compulsory retiring the writ petitioner from service in public interest with effect from 26/4/2005 in exercise of powers under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions, and perused the appeal file.

(3.) The term or phrase "compulsory retirement" in service law has been generally used in relation to cases where an employee has been directed that his services are no longer required before he reaches the normal age of retirement prescribed by the rules. In other words, in substance, there is a premature end of the relationship of master and servant before the servant reaches the prescribed age of retirement or superannuation. Premature retirement is, therefore, a more apt expression to convey the concept with which the petitioner has been subjected. The purpose and object of premature retirement of a Government employee is to weed out the inefficient, the corrupt, the dishonest or the dead-wood from Government service. In Tara Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1975) 4 SCC 86, their Lordships of the Supreme Court summed up the concept of premature retirement in following words: