POONAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was born on 1-11-1922 He was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department of ert while Princely State of Bikaner, on 1-8-1947. THE petitioner was confirmed as Sub Inspector on 6 9-1952 with effect from 1-8-1952. He was thereafter promoted as Inspector of Police by the Inspector General of Police vide his order dated 27-7-1957. He was compulsory retired under a notice dated 25-11-1972 issued by the Inspector General of Police Rajasthan under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, hereinafter called 'the Rules', requiring the petitioner to retire with effect from the date of expiry of three calendar months from the service of the aforesaid notice on the petitioner This notice was received by the petitioner on 29-11-1972 and as such the services of the petitioner were to come to an end on 1 3-1973 under the aforesaid notice.

(2.) ANOTHER order No. 734 dated 4-12-1972 was issued by the District Superintendent of Police, Sikar, vide Ex. 3 whereunder it was ordered that the petitioner shall compulsory retire retrospectively with effect from 30th November, 1972 fore-noon. Yet another order issued by the Inspector General of Police on 13-2-1973 purporting to be under rule 244 (2) of the Rules ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner retrospectively with effect from 4-12-1972 fore noon vide Annexure 4. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner while working as Home Inspector in the office of the Superintendent of Police was granted extra-ordinary leave from 25-1-1966 to 28-3-66, and 8-4 66 to 5-9-66 i. e. for 214 clays (7 months and 4 days ). This period, it is not disputed, cannot be computed for the purpose of 25 years qualifying service. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged his order of compulsory retirement on various grounds the principal ground being that the petitioner had not completed the 25 years qualifying service when the original order of compulsory retirement by the Inspector General of of Police and therefore, the retirement was bad in law. It was further contended by the petitioner that the subsequent orders dated 4-12-1972, 13-2-1973 and 20-7-76 passed by the various authorities of the Police were not valid as they did not fulfill the requirement of Rule, 244 (2) of the Rules and deserves to be quashed The petitioner, therefore, on the above grounds and some other grounds prayed for quashing of the orders dated 25-11-72, 4-12-72, 13- 2-73, and 20-7-76, in this writ petition.