- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24-4-2002 passed by Labour Commissioner, U. P. in exercise of powers under Fundamental Rules 56 (c) of Financial Hand Book Vol. II Part II to IV, compulsorily retiring petitioner from service serving as Welfare Superintendent in the office of Labour Commissioner, U. P. in public interest with effect from the date of the issuance of the order with entitlement to three months pay and allowance.
(2.) I have heard Sri Dinesh Pathak for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 8-7-1972 as clerk in the Labour Department. He was promoted to the post of Welfare Superintendent vide order dated 2-10- 1986 and thereafter as Labour Enforcement Officer on 19-12-1989 in pursuance of orders passed in writ petition No. 5744 of 1986 in the State of U. P. v. O. N. Awasthi, determining seniority the petitioner was reverted to the post of Welfare Superintendent. On the very next date, on 2-5-2000, six out of 25 reverted officers were promoted excluding the petitioner and others. The petitioner has challenged these orders in writ petition No. 906 (SB) of 2000 in Lucknow Bench in which an interim order was issued on 20-6-2000 directing Labour Commissioner, U. P. , to decide petitioner's representation. The order rejecting his representation dated 11-5-2000 is also under challenge in a writ petition filed before Lucknow Bench of this Court. On 24-4-2000, the Labour Commissioner passed an order compulsorily retiring petitioner under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) of F. H. B. Vol. II Part II to IV. The petitioner had received adverse entries in the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. It is contended that the entry for the year 1991-92 was not communicated to the petitioner, and that he acquired knowledge of this entry only when his representation was decided by Labour Commissioner on 20-6-2001 in pursuance of directions issued in writ petition No. 906 (SB) of 2000. In this order it was found that the petitioner was not given any adverse entry after 1993-94, but since he was not substantively appointed as Labour Enforcement Officer and had not completed five years of service as such, he was not entitled for promotion. It is contended that the aforesaid adverse entries were given about 10 years ago, after which petitioner was not communicated with any adverse entry could not be made the basis of subjective satisfaction for compulsory retirement.
(3.) ON 12-5-2003, after hearing the writ petition in part, the respondents were granted time to file supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith entries from 1994-95 to 1999-2000. In compliance with the order a supplementary counter affidavit of Sri Chandra Mani Lal Maurya, Additional Labour Commissioner has been filed enclosing the character roll entries of the petitioner for the year 1994-95 (5-7-1994 to 31-3-1995), 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 (1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998) 1998-99 (1-4-1998 to 31-3- 1999), 1999 (1-4-1999 to 25-10-1999) and 1999-2000 (26-10-1994 to 31-3-2000 ). The entry for the year 1994-95 records his work as Labour Officer, Unnao as "satisfactory". The integrity was certified. He was given the remarks as `good. ' For the year 1995-96 he was given a similar satisfactory report and was red as a good officer. For the year 1996-97, he was found to be courteous and hard working. Necessary assessment of work could not be made as the details were not produced. The integrity was certified and he was rated to be a good officer. The entry for year 1997-98, record his performance in detail. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Lucknow, Region Lucknow found him to be a disciplined courteous and hard working officer who performs his work with devotion and due dispatch. His behaviour with senior officers, colleague, employees and public was found to be courteous, and his work and conduct was found to be excellent. The officer was rated to be an excellent officer. The entry was approved by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. For the year 1998-99 the Deputy Labour Commissioner found him to be honest and courteous officer, took interest in the work and caused sufficient number of inspections and registration. His integrity was certified and he was found to be an excellent officer. The entry received approval from the Additional Labour Commission. The next entry is for the year 1999 (1-4-1999 to 25-10-1999 ). The Deputy Labour Commissioner found that the petitioner did not show interest in the work. His behaviour towards representatives of workmen and superior officers was not courteous, and that he disobeyed the orders of the Senior Officers and Government Orders. His work was found to be ordinary. The integrity was certified. The approving officer rated his work as 'bad'. For the remaining period of the year 1999-2000 (26-10-1999 to 31-3-2000) once again the Deputy Labour Commissioner reported that he did not take sufficient interest in his work. His conduct with representative of workmen and general public was ordinary and that he cannot be rated to be a efficient Labour Enforcement Officer. His work and conduct was found to be very ordinary and he was rated as 'unsatisfactory'. His integrity was certified. The last annexure to the supplementary counter affidavit is the receipt of the letter No. 758 dated 15-12-2000, which is said to be the communication of the adverse entries of the year 1999-2000 to the petitioner.;