B.M. Lal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31 -1 -1987 contained in Annexure 4 to this petition, whereby the petitioner was forced to retire prematurely invoking the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.
(2.) IN short, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Village Level Worker vide order dated 13 -10 -1959 contained in Annexure 1 to this petition. His service record throughout was commendable, with the result he was made permanent and confirmed vide order dated 20th July, 1973. Selection grade was also granted to him in the year 1985. It is contended that till the date of impugned order i.e., 31 -1 -1987 no adverse entry was even communicated to the petitioner, and without any rhyme or reason all of a sudden he was forced to retire by the impugned order contained in Annexure 4 to this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments contended that till 8th August, 1985 when selection grade was granted to him, there was nothing against the petitioner, which could warrant his forced retirement and in between the period from 8th August, 1985 and 31 -1 -1987 since nothing has been communicated to the petitioner which could be said to be adverse record, the action of the respondent invoking the provisions of Rule 56 retiring him compulsorily cannot be said to be justified.
(3.) COPY of this petition was served on learned Standing Counsel on 24 -3 -1987. On 29 -4 -1987 the learned Standing Counsel prayed for and was granted three weeks' time to file a counter -affidavit, but no counter -affidavit was filed. Again on 17 -9 -1991 as a lost chance two weeks' time was granted, but that too was not availed of by filing a counter -affidavit so as to controvert the averments made in the petition. In the opinion of this court it appears that since there was nothing wrong against the petitioner, that is why the respondent is evading to file the counter -affidavit. In such cases compensatory costs is to be awarded not against the respondent -State, but against the officer concerned jointly and severally at whose culpable mistake the petitioner had to suffer mental agony as well as service benefits on account of his illegal forced retirement, but unfortunately since the officer concerned, who is said to be responsible for the forced retirement, has not been made a party in his personal capacity, the view expressed above cannot be translated into action.;