- (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, (in short, "the Corporation"), is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13.3.2007 by which he allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the Corporation compulsorily retiring him under the Regulation 57(a)(i) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1965, (in short, "the Regulations of 1965"). Learned single Judge was of the opinion that the review Committee constituted by the Board of Management of the Corporation had considered the case of the respondent and recommended his compulsory retirement under the Regulation 57(a)(i) of the Regulations of 1965. The recommendations of the review committee were accepted by the Corporation. The review Committee, however, had not recorded any satisfaction that the respondent is no longer useful to the Corporation or that it was in the interest of the Corporation to prematurely retire him. It was held that such an opinion to compulsorily retire an employee of the Corporation must be based on material that is sufficient for a reasonable person to reach at the conclusion that the interest of the Corporation shall be served by placing the employee under compulsory retirement and the opinion so formed is required to be recorded by the Corporation, though it need not be conveyed to the employee. Learned single Judge perused the entire record and found that the opinion to compulsorily retire the respondent was not recorded by the review Committee and, thus, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained.
(3.) On 28.8.2014, we passed the following interim order : "This special appeal is directed against an order dated 13.03.2007 passed by the learned single Judge by which the order passed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation") under Rule 57 (a)(i) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1965 on 24.04.2002, retiring the respondent from service in interest of the Corporation, was quashed. The learned single Judge, after perusing the entire service records, produced in original before him, found that the Screening Committee consisting of three officers had arrived to a conclusion that 24 employees may be considered for compulsory retirement. The recommendation of the Screening Committee was placed before the Review Committee consisting of four members including the Chairman of the Corporation. The Review Committee, after examining the record of all the officers individually, recommended for compulsory retirement of seven employees including the respondent. Learned single Judge after considering the entire service records of the respondent, came to a conclusion that the power of Corporation under the Regulations to weed out inefficient employees from service without casting stigma to them has been exercised in a causal manner. It was found that the Screening Committee, the Review Committee as well as the Chairman of the Corporation did not form an opinion as to why the premature retirement of the respondent was in the interest of the Corporation. The respondent was compulsorily retired from service by perusing his service record in which the respondent had suffered with only one penalty of censure and two recorded warnings. There was nothing else which could be treated as adverse in the service record to reach to the conclusion that the respondent was an inefficient employee and was liable to be compulsorily retired. After quashing the order dated 24.04.2002, a direction was issued by the learned single Judge to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential benefits to be paid to the respondent. The respondent was in pursuance to the Judgment of the Court reinstated in service on 18.07.2007 and has also retired on attaining superannuation on 30.09.2013. We are informed that despite reinstatement and thereafter, retirement of the respondent, he has not been paid any amount towards consequential retiral dues. There is no interim order in this case. After going through the records, we do not find any cogent reason for the appellants to withhold the retiral dues of the respondent. Today, when the matter was called out, the representative of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has requested for adjournment. We are informed that the counsel for the Corporation is not attending the Court, as lawyers are abstaining from work. We do not find any good reason to justify the withholding of the legitimate retiral benefits on account of non appearance of the Counsel. In the facts and circumstances, while granting adjournment to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, it is directed that the amount of retirement benefits payable to the respondent be settled within a period of thirty days on execution of an indemnity bond by the respondent-recipient, to the effect that if the Special Appeal is allowed he will repay the amount. List this special appeal for hearing on 28.10.2014. An affidavit of compliance be filed after one month. The retiral dues should be paid to the respondent with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the amount had became payable to the respondent, upto the date of the actual payment.";