IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.2138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.11.2011 Jai Kumar ... Appellant versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present : Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the appellant. **** Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) This LPA is directed against the judgment dated 21.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the order of compulsory retirement. The appellant who was an employee of the HUDA, was compulsorily retired vide order dated 16.04.2010 on attaining the age of 55 years, which was subject matter of the writ petition. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that HUDA introduced an ambitious program in the shape of total computerization and for that the Clerks and dealing Assistants must have the knowledge of typing and computer and those who fail to acquire the knowledge of typing, they were retired compulsorily on attaining the age of 55 years as they were not considered useful for the institution. We are convinced that the grounds for compulsory retirement of appellant are legal and valid. Institution has the authority to weed out dead ward to bring efficiency in institutional functioning. The law settled in this regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LPA No.2138 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Baikuntha Nath Das and another vs.Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1020 relied upon by learned Single judge is squarely applicable in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any ground to interfere in this present appeal. However, it is contended that the appellant worked for 15 months beyond the date of compulsory retirement and thus, he should be paid the emoluments for the said period. The appellant has placed on record the copy of interim order dated 14.07.2010 whereby the direction was issued not to retire the appellant with a clear stipulation that he shall not be entitled to any salary/emoluments after the proposed date of retirement. It is only on the strength of the interim order that the appellant continued to work and was bound by the conditional interim order. Thus, we find that the appellant is not entitled to any salary/emolument as claimed by him. No merit. Dismissed. (Permod Kohli) Judge November 28, 2011 (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) sonia Judge