Virendra Kumar Rao vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Home Deptt. Lko. & Ors

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quash the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 01.07.2019 passed by the opposite party no.3, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.3 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Head Constable along with all consequential service benefits, in the interest of justice."

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in P.A.C. Department through direct recruitment on 01.10.1984 and he was promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 1992. Vide impugned order dated 01.07.2019 the petitioner was compulsory retired from the post of Head Constable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the in impugned order last 10 years service record of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. The service records of the petitioner are appended as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit and the same has been duly explained in para 6 of rejoinder affidavit. It is submitted that the State Government has issued Government orders dated 26.10.1985, 06.07.2017 and 23.09.2000 in respect of compulsory retirement that the Screening Committee shall be constituted and on its report, the decision of the compulsory retirement shall be passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the impugned order it is not mentioned whether the Screening Committee has recommended for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner or not. No reason has been assigned while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred Clause 5 of the Government Order dated 26.10.1985 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and submitted that as per the Clause 5 of the said notification/Government Order 10 years' service of any employee should be taken into consideration after passing order of compulsory retirement. He has also brought the attention of the Court that the petitioner was recommended for further promotion of the next post after considering their satisfactory services. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has referred para 5 (Annex.No. R.A.1) of rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order passed is illegal and contrary to the provision of the Government Orders as well as Rule 56 (C) of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II Part II to IV, thus, the impugned order 01.07.2019 is liable to be set aside.

Per-contra, Mr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the procedure which has been given in the Government Order dated 26.10.1985, appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has been duly complied and order impugned has been passed by invoking provisions contained in Rule 56(C) of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II Part II to IV in the public interest. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable w.e.f. 01.10.1984 since then there are several adverse remarks has been recorded in the service book of the petitioner specially after the year 1998. Learned counsel appearing for the State further submitted that the service record of the petitioner was not up to the prescribed standard. Learned counsel has brought the attention of the Court to the paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit and submitted that this is wrong to say that before passing the impugned order no Screening Committee has been constituted. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the impugned order passed on the recommendation of the Screening Committee and the same was passed by the competent authority. It has also been submitted that the impugned order passed by the competent authority is in accordance with the several Government Orders and the Provisions of Fundamental Rules 56(C) of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II Part II to IV. There are no illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the said order and learned counsel for the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in the impugned order, hence, the instant petition is debarred by merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

I have perused the impugned order as well as contentions made in the petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit exchanged between the parties.

The provisions of Rule 56(C) of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II Part II to IV is quoted herein for ready reference:

"Fundamental Rules 56 is generally applicable to re-employed personnel and the rules in Chapter XXI of the Civil Services Regulation are subject to the conditions laid down in Fundamental Rule 56. Article 520, Civil Service Regulations, however, from the nature of its concession and conditions, puts the re-employment of a pension in receipt of a superannuation or retiring pension in a special class outside Fundamental Rule 56 and subject to the conditions stated in the article itself which must be observed with every renewal of sanction. "

As per the provisions of Rule 56(C) of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II Part II to IV and the Clause 5 of Government Order dated 26.10.1985, which is appended as Annexure.2 to the writ petition, the order impugned was passed by the competent authority after accepting the recommendation of the Screening Committee. Perusal of the record available and contentions made in the paragraph 7 and 11 of counter affidavit and reply thereof which has been given in the paragraph 9 and 12 of the rejoinder affidavit, shows that on Screening Committee report the impugned order was passed. Only the contentions made in the rejoinder affidavit that no detailed report has been passed by the Screening Committee on which the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State during the arguments has placed the recommendation of the four member Committee before this Court and the same has been taken on record. After perusal of the said report, the Screening Committee has been recommended for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner after taking into consideration of entire service record including the 10 years service record of the petitioner.

In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.