AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
The Petitioner is a Driver in the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. There was a dispute regarding the age of the Petitioner in connection with his superannuation. The Nagar Mahapalika referred the case of the Petitioner for the medical report. The Medical Superintendent, U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur, on 27-5-1991 submitted the report (Annexure 2 to the petition). Thereafter, vide order dated 20-12-19- 1, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari passed an order for superannuation of the Petitioner on the basis of the age recorded in the service book and the Petitioner was required to retire on 31-12-1991. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari has not considered the medical report.
When the medical report was called for by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari before superannuation of the Petitioner, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari should have considered the medical report and should have recorded the reasons for its acceptance or non-acceptance. After referring the matter regarding the determination of age to the Medical Officer, he cannot resile and act in an arbitrary manner. The impugned order dated 20-12-1991 is perse illegal and is hereby quashed. The Mukhya Nagir Adhikari is hereby directed to determine the age of the Petitioner after considering the medical report and to pass a speaking order regarding the age of the Petitioner and, in case he comes to the conclusion that the medical report is not correct, then he may refer the matter to the Medical Board for determination Till the matter regarding the age of the Petitioner is finally settled, the Petitioner shall be deemed to continue in service and shall be entitled to his salary regularly month by month when the same falls due.
With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.