District Rural Development Agency vs Wassan Singh

For the reasons given in the application, delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

LPA No. 75 of 2013

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12-9-2012 vide which learned single Judge allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 14702 of 2004 by setting aside the order dated 6-7-2004 (Annexure P-3) ordering compulsory retirement of respondent No. 1 -Wassan Singh. That order was passed by invoking the provisions of Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I Part I (for short ''the Rule'').

As per facts on record, Wassan Singh, respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Instructor with appellant No. 1 in the year 1979. He was given Assured Career Progression pay scale w.e.f. 01.05.1999.

It is not in dispute that the above said scale is given only when the work and conduct of the employee is up to the mark. The Unit in which respondent No. 1 was working was closed in the year 1999. It is specific case of respondent No. 1 that many other instructors similarly situated who had become surplus on account of the closure of the Unit were absorbed in service. Even after closure of the unit in which respondent No. 1 was working, he was allowed to work with the appellant upto 06.07.2004 when he was compulsorily retired. Order (Annexure P-3) passed reads thus:--

"Whereas, I, Rajeev Sharma, IAS, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, DRDA, Jind is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire Sh. Wassan Singh, Instructor, DRDA, Jind from service after his attaining the age of 55 years by giving him three months notice.

Now therefore, in pursuance of the provisions contained in rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the employees of DRDA as per DRD Employees Services Rules 2001, I, Rajeev Sharma, IAS, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, DRDA, Jind in the public interest, hereby orders that Shri Wassan Singh, Instructor, DRDA, Jind shall stand retired from service w.e.f. 11-10-2004 AN from DRDA, Jind on the expiry of three months.

Sd/- Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman DRDA, Jind dated 6-7-2004."

Memo No. DRDA No. 1723

It is evident from the order referred to above that on attaining the age of 55 years by invoking the provisions of the Rule read with the District Rural Development Agency Employees Service Rules, 2001, respondent No. 1 was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service. There was nothing against respondent No. 1 so far as his work and conduct is concerned. There is no rebuttal to the same. It was further stated in the written statement that on closure of the Unit in which respondent No. 1 was working, efforts were made to get him adjusted elsewhere but when all such efforts failed, he was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 11.10.2004 (AN).

In the reply filed, no detail has been given about the period of five years that is from 1999 to 2004. Further more as to what duties were performed by respondent No. 1 during the period it has not been explained therein. If he could be adjusted for five years, there was no necessity to send him out on attaining the age of 55 years. If the staff was surplus at the time of closure of the unit, then the service of respondent No. 1 could have been terminated in the year 1999 itself. Surprisingly, respondent No. 1 was granted first higher standard pay scale and later 2nd A.C.P. Scale on completion of 20 years of service by the Unit. The above said facts clearly reveal that sufficient work was available with the Unit even after closure of the same for respondent No. 1 to continue working.

In view of the above, contention of counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 1 was sent out from service because of surplus of staff on account of closure of Unit, is devoid of any force.

Learned single Judge has rightly said that to invoke the provisions of the Rule, no material was available with the authorities. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.09.2012 reads thus:--

"Although Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules do confer an absolute right on the employer to dispense with the services of an employee on attaining the age of 55 years but the same cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner, especially when scope and ambit of the said rule is further qualified by the instructions dated 19.11.1991 issued by the State of Haryana in the light of fact that the said instructions were issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government. According to these instructions, the compulsory retirement of a Government employee can be made if he is a dead wood and for that parameters have been laid down. The Annual Confidential Reports have been held to be parameters to assess the competence of an employee. In the present case, it has not been disputed that the work and conduct of the petitioner was very good and, therefore, action of the respondents merely on the ground that there is no work available with them, cannot be accepted."

There is nothing on the record to show that respondent No. 1 was a dead wood or that he did not fulfill the parameters so far as standard of work is concerned. Admittedly, there is nothing against respondent No. 1 so far as his confidential reports are concerned. No case is made out to cause interference by this Court in the present appeal.

Dismissed.