RAM SEWAK PATHAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a matriculate, was recruited as a storeman (technical) on 15.11.1962 and promoted as Storekeeper Grade -I in the year 1977. He was further promoted as Store Supervisor Grade -I in 1987. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted on account of his three successive ACRs having extra -ordinary good and excellent outstanding. Vide his notice dated 2.1,1992, respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner that he shall retire from service on the forenoon of the day following the date of expiring of three months notice period computed from the date following the date of Service of notice upon him. The notice was issued under cl. (J) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules read in conjunction with sub -rule (1) (b) of Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, i972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Rules). It is alleged that the petitioner cannot be retired under cl. (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules as he is neither in Class I nor class II. His case was never allegedly considered objectively by the committee which is not bona fide being not based on any relevant material. It is further alleged that the order has been passed arbitrarily as no public interest is shown to be achieved by passing of such an order. As his ACRs were all good the petitioner could not be retired prematurely. The order impugned is stated to be illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Rule 48 of the 1972 Rules is allegedly not applicable in the case of the petitioner, It has been prayed that the order of retirement of the petitioner issued by respondent No. 3 be quashed and he be allowed to remain in service of the respondents.

(2.) IN the objections filed on behalf of the respondents it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed and promoted as claimed on his turn. No out of turn promotion was accorded to the petitioner. The assessment of performance of the petitioner has been varying from year to year and on the whole it has not been very good, during the last 5 years. His behaviour and discipline was found very poor by his superior for which he has been warned a number of times in writing. Review of GRF.F personnel, as the petitioner is, on their attaining the age of 55 years or on the completion of 30 years service, whichever is earlier, is required to be carried cut by the Review Committee as per the provisions obtained in Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs. OM No, 250113/I/77 -Estt (A) dated 5.1.1978. While considering the review case of the petitioner, the review committee has not approved his retention in GREF service on the completion of 30 years of service in consequence; of which the appointing authority served three months notice upon him for his retirement on completion of the notice period in public interest in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules read in conjunction with sub -rule(l) (b) of Rule 48 of the 1972 Rules.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties who have submitted that this petition be disposed of at this stage by issuing appropriate directions.