LAXMI NARAYAN Vs. NATHDWARA TEMPLE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY this petition was filed by late Laxmi Narayan in the year 1994 challenging the order dated 19. 10. 1994 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondents whereby petitioner Laxmi Narayan was compulsorily retired from service. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and his legal heirs filed application under Order 22 Rule 3, CPC for substitution and taking them on record. This court vide order dated 23. 1. 2006 allowed the said application and legal representatives of the late petitioner were ordered to be taken on record. The amended cause title was also filed after taking on record the legal representatives of late petitioner Laxmi Narayan.

(2.) ACCORDING to the facts averred in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk 1. 10. 1962 in the pay-scale of Rs. 30-55. In the year 1980, he was promoted to the post of U. D. C. ; and, thereafter, the petitioner was promoted and posted as A-Grade Bhandari in the year 1991. Petitioner late Laxmi Narayan pleaded in the writ petition that his work was satisfactory and, therefore, he was transferred from Nathdwara to different places viz. , Porebandar (Gujarat), Madhya Pradesh, Mathura (U. P.) and Calcutta (W. B.) because of his integrity and faithfulness and in view of the fact that the work of Bhandari could only be entrusted to trusted persons because his duty is to keep valuable articles in his custody.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of compulsory retirement is totally illegal and has no foundation to stand before the eye of law. It is true that a deadwood employee having doubtful integrity can be given compulsory retirement and it is for the employer to take such decision; but, such decision should not be based upon illegal terms and, so also, should not be arbitrary. It is contended that it is also required under the law that at the time of recording satisfaction the employer should consider the entire service record of the employee. According to facts it is obvious that four promotions were given to the petitioner since his appointment and lastly he was promoted in the year 1991.