Manish Mathur,J. - (1.) Heard Sri D.R. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite party no.1 to 5. Earlier notices had been issued to the opposite party nos.6 and 7 who were subsequently represented by Sri J. S. Tomar but during the course of present hearing which has continued over a couple of days, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.6 & 7.
(2.) The present petition has been filed against the order of compulsory retirement dated 21.02.1991 with a further prayer for a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with full arrears of salary and other benefits followed by consequential benefits to the same. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 01.10.1964 and his services were subsequently confirmed whereafter he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk (Accounts) in the year 1986. While serving on the aforesaid post, the petitioner was served with an adverse entry on 25.04.1989 pertaining to the years 1988-89. A representation was made by the petitioner against the aforesaid. Subsequently, two other adverse entries were also indicated against the petitioner in his service book pertaining to the years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The petitioner apparently represented against the aforesaid adverse entries also. Out of the aforesaid three adverse entries, the representations against two of them were decided on 16.01.1992 and 21.02.1992 respectively while the third remained pending. In the meantime, on account of the fact that the petitioner had attained 50 years of age, a Screening Committee was held to determine the dead wood in the Department. The petitioner's case was also considered by the Screening Committee and by means of the report dated 05.12.1991, the petitioner's case was found to be fit for screening and a recommendation was made for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendation, the impugned order dated 21.02.1992 has been passed compulsorily retiring the petitioner against which the present petition has been filed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the report of the Screening Committee as well as the impugned order are clearly against the settled law pertaining to compulsory retirement on account of the fact that entries pertaining to the service record of the petitioner were looked into by the Screening Committee only for the recent 3 years and the entire gamut of service record of the petitioner for the past 10 years was not taken into account. He has further submitted that the Screening Committee had also ignored the fact that the petitioner's representations against the aforesaid entries were already pending consideration and had not been decided till the report of the Screening Committee on 05.12.1991. He has submitted that on account of the pendency of the representation of the petitioner, the aforesaid adverse entries for the years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 should not have been taken into account by the Screening Committee. Had these entries not been taken into account, the very basis of the Screening Committee report would be lost. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order is beyond the jurisdiction in view of the fact that it has been passed by the Chief Development Officer whereas the petitioner's appointing authority is the District Development Officer. He has also alleged mala fide against the opposite party no.6 with the submission that it was on account of a complaint made by the petitioner against the opposite party no.6 that the adverse entries were recorded against the petitioner. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to parity with the case of one Yashkaran Lal whose case was also considered by the Screening Committee and it has been submitted that a perusal of the report of the Screening Committee will indicate that the case of Sri Yashkaran Lal was on a worse footing than the petitioner but despite the said fact, he was only given a warning whereas the petitioner's services were dispensed with, which amounted to hostile discrimination against the petitioner. Furthermore, it has been stated that even the salary for 3 months as indicated in the impugned order has not been provided to the petitioner. On account of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is illegal since no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the authority concerned about the public interest involved in compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. Furthermore, no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the authority concerned either regarding the entire service record of the petitioner pertaining to the recent 10 years prior to the date of impugned order and that there is no reasoning or conclusion recorded by the authority concerned regarding the fact that the petitioner had become dead wood for the Department.;