- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a writ petition filed by the legal represen tatives of late Shri Brij Nandan Lal who was an Assistant Security Officer, Railway seeking direction to quash compulsory retirement order dated 2-11-1985 passed by the respondent No. 5 and order dated 21-11-1981 refusing to provide family Pension instead of Provident Fund. A prayer has been further made that the petitioner No. 2 be provided job on compas sionate ground and family pension be given to the petitioner No. 1 as also the representations of the petitioners be decided.
(2.) SHRI Brijnandan Lal was Assistant Railway Security Officer when he was retired compulsorily on 1-8- 1981 at the age of 55 years. He died on 4-12-1981. It is alleged that Brijnandan Lal had opted for pension instead of Provident Fund but it was not finalised and later on an applica tion was made on 1-11-1981 for opting pension instead of Provident Fund to respondent No. 5. It appears that after his death, on 21- 11-1981 a communication was sent to the petitioners that the last date for option was 28-2-1981 and application of SHRI Brijnandan Lal cannot be entertained as it was received late. It is also alleged that SHRI Brijnandan Lal was ill before his retirement and he has not been retired compulsorily and arbitrarily. So many representations were submitted by the petitioners that they be provided family pension and petitioner No. 2 be provided employ ment on compassionate ground but of no avail. The compulsory retire ment of Shri Brijnandan Lal has been described as stigmatic and there is an allegation that it hastened his death. The case of respondents from the counter-affidavit is that the question of giving employment to the legal heirs of Shri Brijnandan Lal does not arise as Shri Brijnandan Lal did not die in harness. It is also alleged that Brijnandan Lal submitted an application for option on 1-11-1981 to grant him pension and the last date for receiving application was 28-2-1981 and as such his case was not considered. It is also averred that the request for extension of date cannot be considered unless the Railway Board extend the date further. It is also alleged that Brijnandan Lal was retired after reviewing his service record and giving him three months notice. The respondents have admitted receipt of various representations of the petitioners.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioners Shri Vivek Mishra. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the retirement of Shri Brijnandan Lal is malicious. He further submitted that the petitioners be given benefit of opting for pension by Brijnandan Lal. The counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments of Shri Vivek Mishra. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record I am of the view that Brijnandan Lal has been retired compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the I. R. E. M. Provision 2046 |f. R. 56] (h) and (i) is quoted below for advantage : " (h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appoint ing authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the absolute right to retire any railway servant giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice : (i) if he is in Class I or Class II service or post and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty-rive years, after he has attained the age of fifty years. (ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty years. (i) Any railway servant may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years if he is in Class I or Class II service or post and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty five years after he has attained the age of fifty-five years, and in all other cases after he has attained the age of fifty-five years : Provided that it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to a railway servant under suspension who seeks to retire under this clause. " According to this provision which is analogous to rules applicable to Government servant, the railway authorities have absolute right to retire a person in the public interest when he attains the age of fifty- five years. The railway authority has formed an opinion after considering the service record of the Brijnandan Lal as he remained ill and absent to retire him, as reveals from the retirement order. In fact Shri Brij Nandan Lal had become dead wood and so the administration thought it fit to retire him. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected.;