Om Parkash Mahajan vs The State of Punjab and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challange here is to the order retiring the appellant Om Parkash Mahajan from service prematurely on his attaining the age of 55 years.

It was on March 13, 1990 that the impugned order (Annexure R-5) was passed retiring the appellant from service during the pendency of these proceeding he has sice crossed his age of super-annuation which he would khave attained on March 31, 1993.

A reference to the record reveals that it was on July 16, 1956 that the appellant Om Parkash was appointed as Clerk. On January 25, 1974, he was promo0ted as Labour Inspector Grade II on adhoc basis and on March 21, 1975, he was allowed to cross his efficiency bar with effect from January 1, 1977 and on October 5, 1982, he was given adhoc promotion as Labour Inspector Grade I with effect from August 2, 1982 Finally, there is the promotion of Om Parkash Mahajan as Labour Inspector Grade I on regular basis by the order of July 15, 1988. As mention earlier, the impugned order retiring him from service was passed against him in March, 1990.

In the return filed on behalf of the respondent-State reference has been made to the adverse annual confidential remarks recorded against the appellant as also the two occasions when he was suspended from service and of the allegations on the basis of which such order of suspension had been passed. The last adverse remarks against Om Parkash Mahajan being of the year 1981, when the punishment of censure was awarded to him, on a charge of corruption.

The aspect of pertinent significance here is that there is no material on record to show any adverse report or punishment against the appellant after 1981. On the other hand, the service career of the appellant as narrated shows, he was given, adhoc promotion to the post of Labour inspector Grade I in 1982 and he was promoted to this post on regular basis in July, 1988. In other words, it deserves note that there is nothing adverse to the petitioners during the nine years preceding the impugned order of premature retirement.

The law is now well settled, as laid down by the Full Bench in Punjab State and Others Vs. Kulwantbir Singh, that the adverse remarks prior to promotion to a higher post, particularly where it is based upon merit and not seniority alone, would loose their significance and such promotion would take away the sting of adverse remarks against the government servant concerned.

This state of law read, in the context of what has been stated in the return with regard to the appellant''s promotion to the post of Labour Inspector Grade I in July, 1988, leaves no manner of doubt that there was no valid basis for the impugned order retiring him from service. The statement in this behalf in the return being "the Promotion of the petitioner as Labour Inspector Grade I on regular basic in the year 1988 was made on the availability of a promotion quota post on the basis of his performance on adhoc basis as Labour Inspector Grade-1

Seen in this light, we hereby quash the impugned order retiring Om Parkash Mahajan from service prematurely (Annexure R 5) and consequently set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and allow the writ petition of the appellant. As a result of this the petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.

This appeal is, thus accepted with Rs. 1,000/- as costs