Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Public Works Department, Electricity Branch, of the erstwhile State of Punjab, on 18.10.1949. Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') came into existence on 2.5.1967, to which the petitioner was transferred in the year 1967. On 24.10.1968 the petitioner was promoted as Head Clerk and further as a Circle Superintendent on 18.7.1984. The age of superannuation in the service of the Board is 58 years. By an order dated 11.2.1985, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service with effect from 17.5.1985 on attaining the age of 55 years. The action was taken under Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana. The Rule clearly envisages that the appointing authority can retire a Class III Government employee after he has attained the age of 55 years if the appointing authority considers to retire him in the public interest. The case for compulsory retirement is to be considered by the appointing authority on the basis of the service record of the employee.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was permitted to cross the efficiency bar as Head Clerk in the year 1982. Thereafter he was again permitted to cross the Efficiency Bar as Circle Superintendent in the year 1985 on the basis of good reports.
(3.) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement stated that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Mr. Satish Sibal, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that in the years 1965 and 1966 there were adverse entries recorded in the annual confidential reports of the petitioner. For the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980-81 the petitioner had earned average reports and that the average reports cannot be treated as good. As per the circular dated 16.8.1983 issued by the State Government, which has been adopted by the Board, the last 10 years reports are considered for the purpose of retaining a person beyond the age of 55 years. An employee, as per the circular, can only be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years if his 70 per cent or above reports are good out of 10 years reports. The petitioner had not to his credit even 70 per cent good reports.;