GANGA RAM BHANDARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia claimed the following reliefs:

(2.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the respondents.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that marching orders Annxs. 1 and 2 are bad in law and deserve to be quashed. The first and foremost ground taken by the petitioner is that the Director General, Border Roads was his appointing authority and hence respondents No. 3 and 4 had no authority to order retirement of the petitioner. The second ground taken by the petitioner is that Annx. I was illegal and illegality inhering in Annx. I could not have been cured by issuing amendment Annx. II. Elaborating this ground, it was argued that no payments were made in pursuance of Annx. I and as such it did not become operative. It was next pleaded that Annx. II was served on the petitioner on 19.2.1983 and the period of three months requisite for effecting retirement of petitioner had to be computed from that date and hence retirement of petitioner w.e.f. forenoon of 27.4.1983 was bad. It was then contended that Annx. I order purported to retire the petitioner by virtue of powers vested in the appropriate authority by virtue of Rules 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 48 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short the Pension Rules'). Rules 48 of the Pension Rules laid down that premature retirement could be ordered only after a government servant had completed thirty years of qualifying service. The petitioner had not completed 30 years of qualifying service on the date he was ordered to be retired. Hence, the order of retirement was bad. Some other pleas were also taken but were not pressed at the time of arguments.