- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. S. Upadhyay and Sri M. R. Jaiswal standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and reminder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of Counsel for the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31 -12 -2003 compulsory retiring the petitioner. BY an earlier order passed on 28 -8 -2006 learned record of the writ petitioner for perusal of the Court which has been produced and looked into. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are: The petitioner Hakim Singh was appointed on 22 -4 -1969 as Lekhpal and was subsequently promoted as Revenue Inspector on 24 -2 -1999. By an order dated 31 -12 -2003 passed by the District Magistrate the petitioner was compulsory retired. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order of compulsory retirement raised following submissions : (1) The compulsory retirement of the petitioner was discriminatory in view of the fact that alongwith the petitioner fifteen other employees were compulsorily retired on the same date i. e. 31 -12 -2003 and with regard to thirteen employees the State Government itself has passed an order re -instating them in service by order dated 27 -12 -2004 on the basis of the report of the Commissioner dated 3 -3 -2004, he submits that there was no distinguishing feature in the petitioner's case with those thirteen employees who are re -instated hence the action with regard to the petitioner is discriminatory and arbitrary. (2) Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there was no material with the respondents to take a decision for compulsory retirement; referring to the supplementary counter -affidavit of the respondents where the materials have been mentioned against the petitioner, he submits that there are only two entries with regard to years 2000 -2001 and 2001 -2002 which have been made as "santoshjanak" with the remark that improvement is required. With regard to censure entry for the year 2002 -2003 dated 25 -7 -2002 he submit that whereas the entry of 2002 -2003 is mentioned as "aprapt". The censure entry dated 25 -7 -2002 had never been communicated and the petitioner first time came to know about the censure entry from the counter -affidavit filed in the writ petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Screening Committee was not properly constituted. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in writ petition No. 7789 of 2004 decided on 8 -11 -2005, Naresh Chandra Sharma v. State of U. P. & Ors. . Learned Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court reported in 1998 (7) SCC 310, M. S. Bindra v. Union of India & Ors. , 2005 (9) SCC 748, Pritam Singh v. Union of India and others, and AIR 1995 SC 111, Ram Chandra Raju v. State of Orissa.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents refuting contentions of the Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no discrimination qua the petitioner. Learned standing Counsel referring to the Screening Committee report letter dated 3 -3 -2004 submitted that thirteen persons were reinstated on valid reasons which are apparent from the report of the Commissioner dated 3 -3 -2004 and there was no discrimination in not reinstating the petitioner. He further submits that censure entry dated 25 -7 - 2002 was duly served on the petitioner. He has so stated in the supplementary counter -affidavit and has submitted that the said entry was received by the petitioner and there is endorsement of the receipt also. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that there was sufficient materials with the respondents for compulsory retiring the petitioner. I have considered the submissions of Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;