IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17105 of 2010 RAJA RAM PRASAD, S/o Late Sri H. Ram, resident of Village-Navdhal Moghulpuri, P.S. Khajekalan, District- Patna.. …Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Shrma Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi, 2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, Bhawishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14 Bhikajee Came Palace, New Delhi, 3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, Bihar Regional Office, R’Block, Patna, 4. The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, Bhagalpur… ..Respondents/Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate, Mr H.K. Karn, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. J.P. Verma, Advocate For Union of India : Mr. Santosh Kr. Singh, C.G.C. ….. 10 21.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Patna, in O.A. No. 15 of 2005 was that he has been subjected to compulsory retirement under the provisions of Rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules without there being justifiable materials and without looking into his entire service records. The Tribunal has considered that the petitioner 2 earned promotion in the year 1995 and hence it can be inferred or presumed that his performance till then was found good or very good, but his subsequent performance has been assessed as average or below average and the concerned authorities have disclosed that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner on the ground of inefficiency was arrived at mainly on the basis of annual confidential remarks for four years i.e. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. There is no dispute about the contents of the A.C.Rs. of those years reviewed by different persons, which have led the authorities to conclude that the petitioner was slack in visiting establishments in his area and not capable of performing his field duties. The various adverse remarks in substance find a clear mention in paragraph 3 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 23.02.2007. We do not find any illegality or factual infirmity in the impugned order to warrant interference. The authorities have exercised the power vested in them under the Fundamental Rules and the exercise of such power appears to have been done in regular and fair manner without creating any doubt of mala fide or perversity. 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. SC (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)