Pakhar Ram vs Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is plaintiffs second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below dismissing his suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 2.12.19S8 prematurely retiring him is illegal, wrong and he is entitled to continue in service as if the said order had not been passed.

In brief, the facts are that on 7.8.1976 while the plaintiff was working as Junior Engineer-II, tried to commit suicide. A case was registered against him u/s 309 of Indian Penal Code. In the said attempt of committing suicide, he lost his right arm and three fingers of his left hand. The Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar determined his disability to be 100 per cent. Because of the disability, plaintiff could have been retired but taking a compassionate view of the matter, he was given desk job so as to enable him to complete qualifying service of 25 years so that he could enjoy the pensionary benefits of his service. During the course of his service, he was adjudged ''below average'' by the competent authority. On completion of qualifying service, he was retired prematurely on 9.3.1983. He challenged the order of his premature retirement in the Civil Court. Upon contest by the defendant, both the Courts have held the order to be legal. Hence this second appeal.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has contended that if the appellant was allowed to enjoy the compassion of the respondent-board from the date of the accident in August, 1976 till March, 1989, there is no reason he should not continue to enjoy the same compassion fill the dale of his superannuation or till the completion of 25 years of qualifying service. Counsel also contended that premature retirement of the plaintiff cannot be said to be in public interest particularly when he was allowed to remain in service w.e.f. September, 1976 to March, 1989.

I, however, find no merit in this contention of counsel for the appellant.

The expression "public interest" in the context of premature retirement has a well settled meaning. It refers to cases where interest of public administration requires retirement,of government servant who with the passage of years, has prematurely ceased to possess. standard of efficiency, competence and utility called for by the government service to which he belongs. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Gian Singh Mann Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Another, .

In this case, plaintiff could have been retired when the Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar had assessed his disability to be 100 per cent but he was retained in service to complete 25 years or qualifying service so as to make him eligible to pensionary benefits. The fact that his employer had taken a lenient view at the time when he made an attempt to commit suicide, the order in question cannot be said to be illegal or not in public interest. As a matter of fact, during his service period, plaintiff never earned good reports and was adjudged ''below average'' or ''average''.

Consequently, no case for interference in second appeal is made out. Dismissed. However, in case the pensionary benefits, if any, are due to the plaintiff, the same shall be released to him without any further delay.

Appeal dismissed.