CWP No.5384 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5384 of 1989 Date of Decision:- March 15, 2010 Jagdish Chander Sharma ...Petitioner Versus HESB and others ...Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Rajat Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ***** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. There is no representation for the petitioner but the counsel for the respondent is present. The case is of the year 1989 and I have therefore, proceeded to examine the case and pass orders on merits with reference to records and with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order of compulsory retirement, retiring him on 31.3.1987. The response to the challenge by the respondents was that the petitioner had crossed the age of 55 years and as per the standing instructions applicable to the service in the Electricity Board, person ought to have secured 70% as good, while the petitioner had CWP No.5384 of 1989 -2- been assigned with the grade less than the benchmark. Even his integrity had been assessed as doubtful for year ending on 31.3.1987. The respondents had also seen the past records from the year 1968 and found that there were reports of complaints against him and he could not be considered as honest. 3. It has been held times without number that compulsory retirement itself is not a punishment. It is a mechanism to keep the deadwood and if in twilight years of service, there had been an action for appraisal and requirement of fulfillment of certain benchmark before a person could be allowed to continue and if it was found that the petitioner had not made this mark, it cannot be interfered with lightly by the Court. The compulsory retirement issued against the petitioner has been done on relevant criteria and there is no error for adjudication to the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. March 15, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE