C D AILAWADI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 01,1990

C.D.AILAWADI Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. COLLECTOR J N SINHA [RELIED ON]



Cited Judgements :-

K L MEHTA VS. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1995-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1999-5-39] [REFERRED]
MAHENDER PAL VS. ADMINISTRATOR NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2000-2-147] [RELIED]
SURENDRA PRASAD MISRA VS. ENGINEERINCHIEF IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH CHATURVEDI HARKHALI CHATURVEDI VS. ADDL DIRECTOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DIVISION [LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
HARI MOHAN RASTOGI LATE GOPI CHANDRA RASTOGI VS. ADHYAKSH UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
BISHNU BAISHYA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2000-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
JABOOLAL CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2002-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
HAR KAMAN LOHARI VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2002-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
NUKENLA AO VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2005-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
Y S R ANJANAYULU VS. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA [LAWS(MPH)-1992-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
KAPOOR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1997-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
BANSHI LAL NAYATI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL FAKIR DALVI VS. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE [LAWS(BOM)-1996-4-102] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMACHANDRARAJU VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1994-8-49] [CONSIDERED]
KHAZAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1999-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR GARG VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2013-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
ATTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-286] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA NATH YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-252] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. VS. PRITHI SINGH MONGA [LAWS(P&H)-1991-4-123] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1992-1-199] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKER PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-243] [REFERRED TO]
DULAL DUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1992-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
K.SELVARAJ VS. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, NEW DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2008-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ GAUR VS. U P POWER CORPN LTD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-370] [REFERRED]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA & ORS. VS. DEBA PROSAD TAGORE & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1993-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD BASHIR RATHER VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-9-36] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution, petitioner assails the order dated 5th September, 1975, of his compulsory retirement from service with effect from 5th of December, 1975, made under S. S. 51(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. The impugned order ran thus:
"WHEREAS the Director of Audit, Defence Services, New Delhi (appropriate authority) is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so,

NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. G)(i) of R. 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the Director of Defence Services (appropriate authority) hereby gives notice to Shri C. D. Ailawadi, Audit Officer, Defence Services that he, having already attained the age of 50 years on the 22nd November, 1969, shall retire from service with effect from the forenoon of the 4th of December, 1975, or from the date of expiry of three months computed from the date of the service of this notice on him, whichever is later.

(2.)The petitioner has pleaded that he was efficient and had risen from the rank of a Clerk to the post of Audit Officer in which he was confirmed with effect from 8-12-1968. According to him, he had clear and unblemished record of service. He had held independent charge of the senior post of Deputy Director of Audit and had been paid an additional amount of Rs. 100/ - per month for the period. He also alleged that his character roll entries were excellent. According to him, it was the obligation of the appropriate authority to review the petitioner's case six months before he attained the age of 50 or completed thirty years of service. Since no such review had been made on the basis of review petitioner had not been retired, he was entitled to continue up to the age of 58, which is the normal age of retirement. According to him, all cases of premature compulsory retirement made during the emergency were reviewed in terms of the Government circular of 10th of August, 1978, but the representations made by the petitioner for the benefit of review in terms of the said circular were not heeded to and the petitioner was, therefore, obliged to file the present petition.
(3.)In the return to the rule nisi by the Director of Audit, Defence Services, it has been contended that the order of retirement was made in public interest after review of the petitioner's case. It has been stated in the said affidavit:
In the case of Shri Ailawadi the Committee after review of his complete record of service observed that his earlier services were of a very marginal nature and he earned some adverse reports later. The Committee, therefore, considering the quality of his work on the whole, concluded that Shri Ailawadi was not fit to be retained in the public interest. The Appropriate Authority felt that his reports for the last few years were poor, colourless and indicative of steady deterioration attributed to family problems and to his state of health. The Appropriate Authority also took into account his latest report for the year 1974-75 which assessed him as 'barely competent to hold an officer's post'."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.