IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17499 of 1996 Date of Decision: September 27, 2010 Attar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ram Niwas Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed, challenging the order dated 14.08.1996 (Annexure P/1), thereby retiring the petitioner prematurely after attaining the age of 55 years. In paragraph no.2 of the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been stated that for the last ten years, petitioner was awarded Average entry and for the year 1995- C.W.P. No. 17499 of 1996 96, he was awarded Below Average entry, hence, as per the circular of the Government of Haryana dated 16.08.1983, pre- mature retirement of the petitioner is correct. Mr. Lohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of K.K. Vaid vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1990(1) Recent Services Judgments, 193, has argued that the Government instructions dated 16.08.1993 has already been quashed and there is no adverse entry about the misconduct or integrity against the petitioner, hence, petitioner is entitled same relief as was granted in the matter of K.K. Vaid (supra). Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, stated that although in the matter of K.K. Vaid (supra), Government instructions dated 16.08.1983 was quashed, however, in the matter of Satya Parkash Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 1997 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1764, Hon’ble Apex Court has referred the case of the judgment of K.K. Vaid (supra) and upheld the premature retirement of the petitioner therein. I have carefully perused the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Satya Parkash Gupta (supra). In the matter of Satya Parkash Gupta, petitioner therein was found to have suffered three punishments and in view of that special fact, Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld premature retirement of 2 C.W.P. No. 17499 of 1996 the petitioner in that case. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Satya Parkash Gupta (supra), in paragraph no.5 thereof has observed as under:- “5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed on the basis of the circular dated 16.8.1983 which prescribes that in respect of officials/officers extension beyond the age of 55 years will be granted in cases where more than 70% of the last 10 years’ confidential reports are good or above. It is urged that the said circular has been quashed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by judgment dated 1.11.1989 in K.K. Vaid v State of Haryana and that in view of the said judgment of the High Court the said circular could not be relied upon for the purpose of compulsory retirement of the appellant. We, however, find that, apart from the said circular, the record of service of the appellant, as noticed earlier, indicates that the performance of the appellant has been graded as “average” and three punishments had been imposed on him. In C.D. Ailawadi v. Union of India this Court has upheld an order of compulsory retirement in respect of an employee who was graded as “average” in his confidential reports Having regard to the service record of the appellant, the order for 3 C.W.P. No. 17499 of 1996 compulsory retirement of the appellant cannot be held to be vitiated so as to call for interference.” In the matter of C.D. Ailawadi vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 328, three judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 8 has observed as under:- “8. An aggrieved civil servant can challenge an order of compulsory retirement on any of the following grounds as settled by several decisions of this Court: (i) that the requisite opinion has not been formed; or (ii) that the decision is based on collateral grounds; or (iii) that it is an arbitrary decision. In Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha this Court held that if the civil servant is able to establish that the order of compulsory retirement suffered from any of the above infirmities, the court has jurisdiction to quash the same. It is not disputed that compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) is not a punishment as it does not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the dead wood is one of the important considerations for invoking Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. In the instance case, on the basis of the service record, the Committee formed the requisite opinion that the petitioner had ceased to be useful and, therefore, should be retired prematurely. We do not think petitioner has been able to place any satisfactory 4 C.W.P. No. 17499 of 1996 material for the contention that the decision was on collateral grounds. Once the opinion is reached on the basis of materials on record, the order cannot be treated to be arbitrary. The service record of more than five years which we have perused shows that the higher officers under whom the petitioner had worked were different and different sets of reviewing officers had also made the entries. Therefore, the reports must be taken to have reflected an appropriate and objective assessment of the performance of the petitioner.” From the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of C.D. Ailawadi (supra), the settled position of law is compulsory retirement is not a punishment as it does not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the dead wood is the important consideration for invoking the Fundamental Rules. Record of the petitioner shows that he was granted “Average” during the year 1987-88, 1990-91, 1994-95 and “Below Average” in 1995-96. Petitioner has not stated that either of these “Average” and “Below Average” entries are mala fide entries and were made because of some bias against the petitioner. Since the petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation, hence, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of C.D. Ailawadi (supra), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5 C.W.P. No. 17499 of 1996 Dismissed. September 27, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 6