- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order compulsory retiring the petitioner in exercise of the jurisdiction contemplated under Fundamental Rule 56 contained in the Financial Hand-book, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said order.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that while the petitioner was holding the post of Munsarim Reader of the Court Vllth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, he had been compulsorily retired with effect from 31-3-1989. The present writ petition was filed on 24-4-1989 on which date an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order had been granted. The parties have exchanged the affidavits and have requested that this writ petition be disposed of finally. It is accordingly being disposed of finally at this stage as contemplated under Second Proviso to Rule 2 (1) of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court. The petitioner has asserted that he had completed the age of 55 years on 28-2-1989. It is also asserted that he had been granted promotions in the year 1967 and again in the year 1988. It is asserted that impugned order of compulsory retirement stands vitiated in law as it is based on certain adverse entries existing on the service record of the petitioner which are of a date anterior to the date of promotion and could not be taken into account and made the basis for compulsorily retiring the petitioner. It has been urged that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner stands vitiated in law and has the effect of curtailing the service tenure of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner without any justifiable basis.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent District Judge, it has been indicated that on 6-1-1989, the petitioner's case along with 42 other employees who had crossed the age of 50 years on 19-10-1988 has been screened by a committee. It is also indicated that during the last ten years, the work of the petitioner had remained highly unsatisfactory and the com mittee had in this view of the matter taking into account the over all picture of the service record of the petitioner recommended for his compulsory retirement. In the counter-affidavit, however, it is not disputed that the petitioner was granted a promotion in the higher scale on 8th December, 1987 and assertion of the petitioner that he was granted another promotion in the year 1988 is also not disputed. The counter-affidavit indicates that both the promotions were routine promotions and had been given to the peti tioner on his turn. Counter-affidavit further indicated, that the promotions had no effect on the earlier entries which could not be deemed to have been wiped out. It is also asserted that the petitioner can be retired even if he had crossed the age of 55 years.;