Raj Kumar vs State of Haryana & others

Prayer in the instant application is for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

The only justification put forth in the application is that delay has occurred on account of processing of the case file and such delay was not

deliberate or intentional.

We do not find the same to be a good ground to condone the delay.

Application is dismissed.

Main case:

Instant appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge and

whereby writ petition filed by the appellant assailing the order of his compulsory retirement has been dismissed.

Learned counsel would submit that the appellant was serving as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways and upon attaining the age of 55 years, a

decision was taken not to retain him in service and as such, he was served with an order of compulsory retirement dated 16.01.2013. Precise

argument raised is that learned Single Judge while negating the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement has overlooked the aspect that there

was only one adverse report for the year 2005-06 and since emphasis was to be laid on the last 10 years service record, the order of compulsory

retirement was not justified. The instance of one Rajpal serving as Conductor under Haryana Roadways has been cited to contend that such employee

also possessed a chequered service record but in spite thereof, has been retained in service.

Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.

The Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das V. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, 1999 (2) SCC 299 had held that an order retiring an employee

on completion of 55 years of age is not passed as an punishment and it does not cast any stigma. The competent authority has the discretion to retire

an employee after he attains a particular age or completes a particular period of service. It was further observed that even though performance of an

employee during the recent past would have to be given more weightage but the entire record of service should be taken into reckoning while forming

an opinion not to retain an employee in service beyond the age of 55 years.

It is also well settled that if there is an entry of doubtful integrity in the service record of the employee then a view can well be taken to retire such

employee prematurely in public interest. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India V. Ajay Kumar

Patnaik, (1995) 6 SCC 442 and Jugal Chander Saikia V. State of Assam, (2003) 4 SCC 59.

Learned counsel for the appellant does not rebut that in the ACR for the year 2005-06, integrity of the appellant had been doubted. Further he had

been penalized by as many as 9 orders of recovery of money between the period 18.03.2002 to 19.03.2011 and as has been observed by the learned

Single Judge.

In our considered view, the writ Court while examining the validity of an order of compulsory retirement is not to act as an Appellate Court and

interference would be justified only if the order is found to be vitiated by malafides or is passed on no evidence or is arbitrary to the extent that no

reasonable person could form the opinion to compulsorily retire on the basis of the given material. In the instant case, we find that there was sufficient

material to form an opinion not to retain the appellant beyond the age of 55 years.

The instance furnished by learned counsel for the appellant of another Conductor of the Haryana Roadways, namely, Raj Pal and who has been

retained in service in spite of a poor service record, would be of no consequence. Even, if such assertion was taken as factually correct, still no right

would vest in the appellant to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years in spite of his integrity having been doubted. Article 14 of the Constitution

of India envisages a positive concept and cannot be cited to invalidate an order of compulsory retirement which otherwise has been passed in

accordance with law.

We are in agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge while upholding the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant being

inconsonance with the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra).

There is no merit in the appeal.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay.