DURGA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1996-9-36
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 17,1996

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. This writ petition was filed by Durga Prasad Sharma, the petitioner herein, inter alia, challenging the impugned order of compulsory retire ment dated 30. 3. 1990, set out at annexure-8 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE said order written in Hindi if reproduced in English will reveal that in exercise of powers contained in Fundamen tal Rules 56 (c) of the Financial Handbook Vols. II ( Part 2 to 4), I, R. C. Tolia, Milk Commissioner, Dairy Milk Development, U. P. Lucknow, who is the appointing authority of the category and post on which Sri Durga Prasad Sharma, Government Milk Supervisor is posted is here by directed that Sri Durga Prasad Sharma shall be deemed to be compulsorily retired with ef fect from afternoon from the date of passing of the order dated 30. 3. 1990 and he will be entitled for the salary for the period of three months in lieu of service and other allowan ces which he was drawing immediately before proceeding to his retirement. The aforesaid impugned order of compulsory retirement has been challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on following grounds: (i) Because, the retirement order has been passed illegally, arbitrarily and in colourable exer cise of powers, as such the same is laible to be set aside. (ii) Because, while passing the retirement order, adverse entry against which the repre sentation is pending was taken into consideration which should not have been taken into account. As such the retirement order was passed illegally, arbitrarily and is liable to be set aside. Sri VK. Singh, learned counsel ap pearing for the petitioner drew attention to the contents of paragraph 8 of counter-af fidavit, in which the adverse entry with effect from 21. 7. 1987 to 31. 12. 1987 for the assess ment year 1987-1988 has not been disputed. As such, according to learned counsel the adverse entry in the year 1987-88 has been wrongly treated as it has been given for the year 1986-87.
(3.) THE representation filed By the petitioner for the adverse entry for the period 21. 7. 1987 to 31. 12. 1987 has been rejected by the order dated 8. 2. 1990 as being time barred. When this writ petition was moved before Hon'ble V. N. Khareand Hon'ble H. C. Mital, JJ. on 17. 4. 1990 as at that time this petition was cognizable by a Division Bench, their Lordships granted no interim order, staying the operation of the im pugned order of compulsory retirement dated 30. 3. 1990.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.