Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—The petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order prematurely retiring him from service on the ground that he is declared as medically unfit with effect from 27.5.1992 on attaining the age of 55 years.

The petitioner started his career as Constable in the year 1957 and at the time of his premature retirement he was working as Assistant Sub Inspector. The date of birth of the petitioner is 16.1.1937. In the normal course he would have retired on 31.1.1995. While so, he was prematurely retired from service on 27.5.1992. The order of premature retirement reads as follows:-

"Ad hoc ASI Mohinder Singh No. 561/GRP presently on deputation to Intelligence Wing Punjab has been declared medically unfit by the Principal Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh vide his Memo No. S-E-92/793 dated 16.4.1992 for Govt. Service beyond the age of 55 years. Therefore, he is retired from service with immediate effect. Order be booked and all concerned informed accordingly."

Before retiring him on the ground that he was medically unfit, the comments of the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Headquarters under whom the petitioner was working were called for. According to the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner is good to control new young drivers in M.T. and recommended for extension as admissible in the rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to undergo medical examination. Accordingly the petitioner submitted himself for medical examination in December, 1991. The medical report annexed with the written statement which is marked as Annexure R-1 shows that ''C-Vision is normal'' but the Medical Officer opined that he was unfit. The Principal Medical Officer before giving the report contained in Annexure R-1 has undisputedly written to the Additional Director General of Police about the medical standards prescribed. To that the Additional Director General of Police vide his letter dated 8.4.1992 which is marked as Annexure R-2 had stated as follows:-

"In this connection your kind attention is invited to this office memo No. 3901/EDSB-2 dated 11.2.1992. As already intimated, there are no such prescribed standards on the subject in this Department. It is again requested that necessary opinion about the fitness to continue beyond the age of 55 years may be given as per rules/instructions of the medical department without any further loss of time. The incumbent has already attained the age of 55 years on 15.1.1992 his date of birth being 15.4.1937. This may be treated as Most Immediate."

Thus even according to the Additional Director General of Police, there have been no prescribed standards on the subject. Nonetheless the report of the Medical Officer shows that the petitioner was found of immature senile cataract in both eyes.

The petitioner was working as ASI and he was found to be god by the Superintendent of Police under whom he was working to control new young drivers in M.T. When the authority under whom the petitioner was working recommended his case for extension, simply because the Medical officer found immature cataract cannot be made a ground to prematurely retire him from service.

The learned counsel for the State is not able to place before me any rule which prescribes the standard of vision. If the petitioner is completely or partially blind, then there may be justification for terminating his services. But this is not the case here. His vision was found normal. When his vision was found normal, simply because the Medical Officer found immature cataract cannot be made a ground for premature retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years. The learned State Counsel has also not been able to place before me any material showing that the petitioner was conveyed any adverse remarks during his service.

On a consideration of the material placed before me, I am of the view that the order of premature retirement has been passed on extraneous grounds and the order of premature retirement of the petitioner has been passed wrongly. Therefore, the order Annexure P-4 is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of premature retirement of the petitioner. Had the petitioner been not retired prematurely he would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the normal course. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to all monetary benefits as if he would have continued in service till the date of his superannuation. Accordingly, he shall be paid all the arrears of salary from the date of his premature retirement till the date of superannuation and also the pensionary benefits from the normal date of superannuation as if he had retired on 31.1.1995 The arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within four months positively from the date of the judgment. However, there will be no order as to costs.