IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 170 of 2011 Girvar Singh Barswal …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…Respondents. Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate present for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no. 2. The petitioner is an employee of Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation Limited. He is challenging the order dated 4.1.2011 by which he has been prematurely retired from service by invoking powers under Fundamental Rule 56. On the last occasion, this Court had directed the counsel representing the Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation Sri Subhash Upadhyay to produce the service record of the petitioner inasmuch as the concerned authority though empowered to compulsory retire an employee, it can do so only after perusing the service record of such an employee. In the counter affidavit which has been filed before this Court, it has been stated that there is no service record of the petitioner available with the respondent inasmuch as service book of the petitioner has not been prepared, as it was not prepared since the initial appointment of the petitioner in Uttar Pradesh. Though the order dated 4.1.2011 does not assign any reason, in paragraph (F) of the counter affidavit the respondent has stated that petitioner is not keeping good health and as such he is being compulsorily retired. This is not a ground to compulsorily retire an employee. The only 2 ground to compulsorily retire an employee is available under Fundamental Rule 56 which can be done after examining past service record of the petitioner. This has evidently not been done and clearly the ground on which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired is not available to them in law. Therefore, the order dated 4.1.2011 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Writ petition succeeds. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.6.2011 Kuldeep