IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.59 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 17, 2011 Ramesh Chand Sood ….Appellant Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. The challenge in the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is against the interlocutory passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.10.2010. While issuing notice of motion in respect of other impugned orders, the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of compulsory retirement passed on 24.12.2007. The basic reason for repelling the challenge to the aforesaid order is that the writ petition has been filed very close to the period of three years, i.e. on 25.10.2010. Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that once notice of motion has been issued in respect of the other impugned orders, then the order of compulsory retirement could have also been examined by the learned Division Judge. The writ L.P.A. No.59 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petition could not have been dismissed on account of delay and latches, although the same was within the period of three years. According to learned counsel, the whole record of the appellant was required to be examined before upholding the order of compulsory retirement. Having heard the learned counsel and examining the order dated 28.10.2010, we are of the considered view that the order of compulsory retirement dated 24.12.2007 (P.3) passed by the respondent does not suffer from any legal infirmity and, accordingly, the interlocutory, order rejecting the claim of the appellant with regard to his compulsory retirement, has been rightly passed by the learned Single Judge. The basic reason for the learned Single Judge to take the view against the appellant could be that if order of compulsory retirement was challenged about three years later then the respondent could not have asked the appellant to work and the public exchequre could be unnecessarily burdened with the financial expenses in the shape of payment of salary, increments and other arrears. The legitimation for challenging such an order of compulsory retirement promptly is mandated by law so as to provide an option to the employer that the employee can be taken back in service in case on close examination of the record, the Court has come to a decision favourable to the employee. Therefore, all the eventualities and sanctions accepted by law have been discounted at the instance of the appellant himself by approaching the Court belatedly. Moreover, even on merit we are L.P.A. No.59 of 2011 (O&M) -3- satisfied that pre-mature retirement of the appellant is not unwarranted. It is admitted case of the appellant that in the year 2002, his two increments with cumulative effect were stopped and he remained under suspension on account of pendency of a criminal case. The retention of such a person in the service of an institution, like the High Court, would be against the public interest. Therefore, even on merit it cannot be claimed by the appellant that he has been illegally retired compulsorily on 23/24.12.2007 (P.3) at the age of 55 years vide impugned order. Accordingly, we find that there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 17, 2011 JUDGE satish