D.R.CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15-11-1994 retiring him compulsorily with immediate effect under the provisions of Financial Handbook Vol. II, Parts II to IV), Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (C).
(2.) IT is contended for the petitioner that his service record has been unblemished throughout, no adverse entry was ever awareded to him, has not been taken notice of by the Screening Committee, the petition is physically fit with good health; there was no material before the Review Committee to form opinion to recommend compulsory retirement; the the Review Committee picked up the petitioner and arbitrarily recommended for premature retirement in order to comply the mandate of the Chief Engineer (Establishment) P.W.D., U.P., Lucknow contained in his letter dated 10-12-1993; the opinion of the Review Committee that the petitioner is physically unfit is wholly without basis as no medical opinion was sought from the C.M.O. or the Medical Board; petitioner's date of retirement according to his date of birth recorded in this service book is 31-3-2003 and he is entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits; the order impugned is violative of principle of audi alteram as contemplated under Rule 56-D of Fundamental Rule; the order impugned is wholly illegal, unjustified and suffers from vice of arbitrariness. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Review Committee found the petitioner physically unfit; the impugned order passed on recommendation of the Review Committee is in the public interest hence no opportunity of hearing is necessary. Assertion in writ petition that petitioner's service is clean and unblemished, has not been disputed by the respondents, it has also not been disputed by the respondents that there was no material before the Screening Committee to form opinion and to recommend premature retirement.
(3.) AS required by the Court the report of the Screening Committee was produced before the Court alongwith the copy of the impugned order. I have perused the record. It appears from the record that as many as 57 employees were screened. In the remark column of some of the employees the opinion as physically fit/unfit is mentioned and further no opinion is recorded against several employees of the list and the remark column left blank; there is no expert medical opinion on record. Thus opinion of Review Committee is without any basis or material on record. It is also evident from the record that the employees who are elder in age to the petitioner, have been retained and in that view of the matter the age has not taken to be the criterion for recommending premature retirement.;