RSA No.3949 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3949 of 2010. Decided on: April 21, 2011. Darshan Singh. .. Appellant VERSUS The State of Haryana and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff for declaration that his pre- mature retirement ordered vide order dated 04.06.1999, at the age of 50 years, is illegal, stands dismissed by the Courts below. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse entries in his service record were never communicated to . . . 1 RSA No.3949 of 2010 him and that he had not completed 25 years of qualifying service. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. The plaintiff had filed a writ petition on the same ground which was dismissed by the High Court. The Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that on the basis of service record which is average or below average, the plaintiff has been rightly ordered to be retired at pre- mature stage, at the age of 50 years. The representation submitted by the petitioner against the adverse entries had also been dismissed. The order of pre-mature retirement of the plaintiff is not stigmatic and does not warrant interference in the second appeal. No ground is made out for interference in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 21, 2011. rka . . . 2