M. Katju, J. - (1.) Petitioner was appointed on 28.12.62 as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and since then he has been continuously in service. By means of this writ petition he has challenged the impugned order of compulsorily retirement dated 5.4.90 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition). The petitioner's date of birth is 25.5.37 and hence in ordinary course he would have retired on 25.5.95 on completion of 58 years. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition. In para 36 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner was given a censure entry for the year 1976-77 on 8.2.88 and another censure entry for 1976-77 on 11.9.1989 in the same year. Against these censure entries the petitioner has filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal which is pending. Apart from these censure entries there is also entry for the year 1983-84 awarded on 11.9.85 and against this the petitioner has filed a representation which is pending.
(2.) In para 35 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the adverse entry for the year 1983 has been expunged. Since the censure entries are for the year 1976-77, they cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of compulsory retirement in 1990 because they relate to old matters which have become stale. It is no doubt true that these censure entries were given in 1988 and 1989 i.e. within 5 years of the order of compulsory retirement, but we have to see the logic of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this connection. The logic is that old matters should not be relied on to justify an order of compulsory retirement vide Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer, 1992 (64) FLR 1090 (SC) .
(3.) In the present case the censure entries pertain to something which happened in 1976-77. Surely the petitioner cannot be compulsorily retired for what happened so long ago. It is his performance in recent years which has to be seen.;