RSA No.1459 of 1993 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2204-C of 1995 and RSA No.1459 of 1993 Date of Decision: 14.05.2009 Punjab State & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Amolak Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.R.L.Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the appellants. None for the respondent. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.6.1992 passed by learned courts below vide which order RSA No.1459 of 1993 (O&M) 2 dated 30.4.1985 ordering premature retirement of the plaintiff/respondent at the age of 56½ years has been ordered to be set aside. The plaintiff/respondent joined Punjab Police as a constable and vide order dated 30.4.1985. He was ordered to retire prematurely. The appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the order of premature retirement was dismissed on 17.11.1987. By way of separate order dated 26.10.1985 the plaintiff was deprived of his right to have the benefit of leave encashment for 180 days which was permissible to him under the Rules. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed on 7.1.1986. The plaintiff pleaded in the suit, that he was granted extension in service up to 58 years of age when his case was considered on attaining the age of 55 years. The said order was passed on 6.9.1983. The plaintiff/respondent was thereafter selected for Criminal Scientific Interrogation Course at Central Dective Training School, Calcutta. The case of the plaintiff was that there was no material or legal evidence before the defendants to pass the impugned orders of premature retirement. The plaintiff further claimed that adverse Annual Confidential Reports which were not conveyed to him were taken into consideration while forming opinion to prematurely retire the plaintiff/respondent. As already observed above the plaintiff/respondent claimed that he had to his credit six months of earned leave under the Rules and therefore, was entitled to leave encahsment of 180 days. Orders were also challenged on the ground of being non-speaking orders. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellants wherein a RSA No.1459 of 1993 (O&M) 3 stand was taken that annual confidential reports of the plaintiff/respondent were not up to mark and all adverse annual confidential reports were conveyed to the plaintiff/respondent. Learned trial court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding that as per Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1985 an employee could be compulsorily retired on completion of 25 years of qualifying service, or when he attains the age of 50 years. An employee can also be compulsorily retired on any date thereafter in public interest but the said review had to be carried out at the age of 50 years for extension up to 55 years and then at the age of 55 years for extension up to the age of 58 years. On review on attaining the age of 50 years an employee is allowed to continue up to 55 years of age and thereafter on clearance on 55 years he is to continue up to the age of 58 years. The learned trial court, therefore, was pleased to hold that the defendant/appellants could not have retired the plaintiff/respondent at the age of 56½ years. The learned trial court also held that the order impugned did not make out any exceptional circumstance to prematurely retire the plaintiff/respondent at the age of 56½ years. The findings recorded by the learned trial court have been affirmed by the learned lower appellate court and the contention of the State that even one adverse entry regarding integrity is sufficient for premature retirement of a government servant, was not accepted for the reasons that it was for the State to have taken the decision on review when the plaintiff/respondent attained the age of 55 years. However, at the time of consideration he was allowed to continue till the age of 58 years. RSA No.1459 of 1993 (O&M) 4 Once the extension was granted, it was not open to the State to have compulsorily retired the plaintiff/respondent on attaining the age of 56½ years especially when annual confidential reports taken into consideration were available with the State Government when he was cleared to continue up to the age of 58 years. The learned lower appellate court also held that there was no evidence on record that the matter regarding review of his extension at the age of 55 years was pending. The learned lower appellate court did not accept the version of the appellants that the plaintiff could be compulsorily retired due to pendency of corruption cases, in view of the fact that in none of the cases, he was convicted. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: “ Whether learned courts below were justified in interfering with the exercise of powers by the State to prematurely retire an employee as per the Service Rules?” In support of the substantial question of law, learned Additional Advocate General contends that the learned courts below have failed to notice that even one confidential report of doubtful integrity was sufficient for premature retirement. Otherwise also service record was not good which could entitle him, to continue in service up to the age of 58 years. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab also contends that on over all assessment of annual confidential reports it was open to the RSA No.1459 of 1993 (O&M) 5 defendant/appellants to have prematurely retired its employee even though he has crossed the age of 55 years during the pendency of review of his case, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below cannot be sustained. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State/appellants. In the present case learned courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the defendant/appellants failed to produce any material on record showing the exceptional circumstances which could entitle them to review mid-way the case after the plaintiff/respondent had crossed the age of 55 years and he was allowed extension up to 58 years. The civil court can always interfere if the order is patently perverse and contrary to Service Rules. In the present case nothing was pointed out, as to under what authority the order passed for extension of service of the plaintiff/ respondent up to 58 years was liable to be reviewed. All the material which is the basis of passing the impugned orders was available with the State when the case of plaintiff/respondent was reviewed on attaining the age of 55 years. The substantial question of law raised is answered against the appellants for the reasons stated. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal it is dismissed but with no order as to costs. 14.05.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge