P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 2956-C of 2006. By way of the present application, the appellant seeks condonation of 10 days delay in filing of this regular second appeal. It is stated that the appellant was unwell and had been advised bed rest by the doctors. It was for this reason that he was unable to sign the power of attorney and there has occurred a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons as stated aforesaid the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 1205 of 2006
(2.) Plaintiff filed a civil suit challenging the order dated 4.12.2002 vide which he had been prematurely retired from service. Both the Courts below have dismissed the civil suit. The plaintiff and remained under suspension from 20.3.1985 till 16.5.1995. Therefore when his case was considered for premature retirement, his 10 years record from 1981-82 to 1984-85 i.e. prior to suspension and 1995-96 upto 2000-2001 i.e. after his reinstatement was taken into consideration. As per instructions circulated by the State of Haryana it is only if a person has 70% good or better than good reports he is considered to be fit to be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years. The Courts have found that his ACRs for the year 1981-82, 1982-83, 1984-85, 1995-96 and 1996-97 are Average and other five ACRs were Good. He has thus earned five good reports and he has not earned 70% good or better than good report for retention in service at the age of 55 years. Therefore the Courts found that since he did not make the benchmark as per the Government instructions, there was no illegality in the order of premature retirement.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that his ACR for the year 2001-2002 should also have been considered as he had actually worked upto that period by the time the order of premature retirement was passed. Even if it is assumed that the said ACR is good and should be taken into consideration, still the appellant would only have 60% good reports and not meet the benchmark. Therefore, it would make no difference to the consideration of the appellant's case.;