G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5-9-2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant for quashing the order dated 6-11-1995 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service was dismissed.
(3.) The appellant, who was a Sub Inspector of Police, was served a notice dated 8-6-1989 by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, by which he was informed that he had attained the age of 55 years on 9-6-1989 and as he was not considered fit to be retained in service beyond the said age, he was being given notice of three months as required under the provisions of Punjab Police Rule 18(1)(c) read with note below therein and Rule 5.32 of C.S.R. Vol. II and accordingly he will be deemed to have retired from service after the expiry of period of notice i.e. on 7-9-1989. The appellant challenged the aforesaid notice of compulsory retirement by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 9623 of 1989, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 5-5-1995 and the operative part of the order reads as under : "In the result, the writ petition is allowed only on the ground that the competent authority did not apply its mind to the record of the petitioner but acted under the dictates of his superior officer while issuing the impugned notice and, therefore, the impugned notice is quashed. However, it is left open to the competent authority to independently examine the record of the petitioner and take a fresh decision as to whether the petitioner should have been retained in service beyond 55 years of age. Such decision should be taken by the competent authority within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order. The competent authority shall take a decision without being influenced by any observation made in this order. If the competent authority once again comes to the conclusion that the petitioner did not deserve to continue beyond 55 years of age, the petitioner shall not get any other relief. On the other hand, if it is held that the petitioner had a right to continue in service beyond 55 years, the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service till the age of superannuation and he shall in that event get all monetary benefits. Parties are left to bear their own costs." The letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench on 20-11-1997 and review petition was also dismissed on 20-3-1998. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11428-11429 of 1998 were preferred in this Court challenging the orders passed in letters patent appeal and in the review petition and the same were dismissed on 5-11-1999.;