BALA PRASAD PANT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement passed in December, 2001 by respondent No. 1/State of Madhya Pradesh as well as Circular dated 30.1.2002 issued by respondents which according to the Counsel for petitioner is contrary to the constitutional provisions of Rule 42 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

(2.) Basic facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Superintendent, Land Record (Nazul) in the office of Collector, District-Panna. The service record of the petitioner was unblemished. And since he was granted due promotions, it was evident that his work was satisfactory and he discharged his duties efficiently. That the petitioner was also the recipient of several certificates denoting the appreciation of service (Annexures A/3, A/4 & A/5) and was for the first time communicated adverse remarks for the year 2000 received by him on 19.10.2000. On submission of detailed reply, there was no heed paid to it by the respondents/authorities. The petitioner alleged that the same representation (Annexure A/7-(a) remains undecided till date and is pending consideration before the authorities.

(3.) In the month of December, 2001, a memo was issued by respondent No. 2/Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Bhopal informing him that he would stand compulsorily retired w.e.f. 31.3.2002 in accordance with Sub-rule 1 (b) of Rule 42 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. That there was also a GAD Circular issued by the respondent/State, whereby respondent No. 3/Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Gwalior, (MP) had informed that the decision pertaining to compulsory retirement was to be taken only after the service record of the incumbent had to be scrutinised as per Rule 42 of the M.P.Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 was to be invoked. And since the notice was issued to the petitioner in the month of December, 2001 itself, the said Circular could not apply to the petitioner. So also it was self-evident that the matter of compulsory retirement of the petitioner had not been considered by the Screening Committee. The petitioner has also submitted representation to the Chairman of the Committee vide Annexures A/10 dated 5.2.2002 & A/11 dated 14.2.2002 and the same are also pending consideration.