- (1.) Under challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 16-10-2001 passed by the respondents whereby retiring the petitioner compulsorily in exercise of their powers under Clause 18D(1) of the Rajasthan Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for short 'the Standing Orders').
(2.) The facts in brief of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Conductor by the order dated 4-4-74 in the pay scale of Rs. 90-150. He was thereafter, promoted to the post of Asstt. Traffic Inspector w.e.f. 16-9-1988 vide order dated 30-5-1996 passed by the Executive Director (Traffic), RSRTC. Jodhpur. Thereafter, vide order dated 30-10-2000 he was again on the recommendations of duly constituted departmental authorities promoted to the post of Traffic Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2000-2001. The petitioner has stated that he was issued appreciation letter by Executive Director (Traffic) on 9-7-2001, which he has annexed as Annex.3. It has been stated that he has not faced any disciplinary proceedings while holding the post of Asstt. Traffic Inspector, although, certain penalties were imposed upon him in the earlier beginning of his service career but thereafter, the respondents have always appreciated his work and he has discharged his duties with efficiency, honesty and dedication. In recognition of his merit, the respondents have promoted him not once but twice. The order of his compulsory retirement was passed on 16-10-2000. The petitioner has stated that even though Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders, 1965 empowers the Corporation to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years or on the date he completes 25 years of service whichever is earlier if retention of the employee is not in the interest of the corporation. However Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders, 1965 itself is unjust and arbitrary as it empowers the employer with absolutely unguided. unbridled and un-channelled powers to retire an employee. therefore, the same is ultra vires to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be declared unconstitutional. Alternatively, it has been submitted that there is no foundation for holding that retention of the petitioner up till the age of his superannuation is not in the interest of corporation. The employment is valuable right of the petitioner and this cannot be snatched away by the employer without giving just and proper reason. The normal age of retirement is 58 years and this term can be reduced only in the event of imposition of punishment of removal or dismissal or by simple discharge in accordance with the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the case of the petitioner, invocation of this provision was nothing, but a colourable exercise of powers. It has also been argued that since the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 4-4-74, therefore, he completed 25 years of service on 4-4-1999. As per the provision contained in Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders, 1965, the petitioner could have been retired compulsorily from the service of the Corporation on 4-4-99 and the respondents having failed to exercise that power soon thereafter could now exercise such power only after the petitioner attained the age of 50 years. It has been stated that when respondents themselves after consideration of the service record of the petitioner, granted him two promotions in quick session (succession ?) in the past five years immediately preceding of the date of his compulsorily retirement, the petitioner could not be chopped of service by castigating him as inefficient employee or a dead wood. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 16-10-2001 retiring petitioner compulsorily from the service may be quashed and set aside and petitioner be awarded all consequential benefits and further it has been prayed that Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders, 1965 may be declared ultra vires to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The present writ petition has been contested by the respondents, who have filed detailed reply thereto. In the reply, the respondents have raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present writ petition. It has been stated that the controversy raised in the present writ petition would lie within the scope of a dispute or difference between an employee and a workman, which is an industrial dispute and the only remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the forum created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On merits of the case, it has been denied that there is no foundation for holding that the retention of the petitioner in service was not in the interest of the Corporation. The order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service has not been passed as a punishment. The order of compulsory retirement can always be passed by the competent authority on the basis of subjective satisfaction formed by him that retention of the employee is not in the interest of the Corporation on the basis of his service record. Number of punishments were imposed on the petitioner during his service period and the petitioner has not disclosed these important facts. The respondents in their reply have given a chart to show the adversity with which the petitioner suffered when he was working as Conductor, which is reproduced hereinbelow : JUDGEMENT_123_LAWS(RAJ)7_20061.html;