1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No. 8071/2005 Anthres Khalkho Vs. State of M.P. and others Present : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner. : Shri K.L. Gupta, advocate. For the respondent/ State. : Shri S.M. Lal, G.A. For respondents no. 2 and 3. : Shri Ajay Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gaurav Dubey, Advocate. O R D E R (11.10.2011) The petitioner who is working on the post of L.D.C. has challenged the impugned order dated 29.07.2005 whereby the respondents/authorities have compulsorily retired the petitioner by applying the circular dated 22.08.2000 issued under rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and rule 42 (b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 providing for compulsorily retirement after scrutiny of the employees who have either completed 50 years of age or 20 years of 2 services which has been made applicable to the employees of the concerned Development Authority in view of the provision of sections 76-A and 76-B of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 and provisions of the M.P. Development Authority Services (Officers and Servants) Recruitment Rules 1973. 2. On directions being issued by this court, the record of the scrutiny committee was produced before this court. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired on account of the fact that his over all service record was not good and below (Kh) category which is a condition prescribed in clause 4 of the guidelines prescribed in the circular dated 22.08.2000. 3. It is however submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that clause 4 of the criteria requiring minimum grading of (Kh) i.e good in over all record prescribed by the circular dated 22.08.2000 has subsequently been diluted and it has now been provided that the services should be satisfactory by amending circular dated 22.08.2000 by the subsequent circular dated 20.03.2003 which further provides that all cases which have been considered and decided under the circular dated 22.08.2000 may be reconsidered on the applications being filed by the persons concerned and such persons may be taken back in service in case their service record fulfills the modified and substituted criteria as provided under the 3 circular dated 20.03.2003, para 2 of which is quoted herein below:- “2- ftu 'kkldh; lsodksa dks iwoZ eas mijksDr Kki fn0 12-12-2001 esa n'kkZbZ xbZ izfdz;k dk vuqikyu djrs gq, vFkok Kki fn0 22-8-2000 dh df.Mdk 2¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr ekun.M dzekad ¼4½ ds dkj.k Nkuchu lfefr dh vuq'kalk ij “vfuok;Z lsokfuo`r fd;k x;k gS] ;fn os bu funsZ'kksa ds ” ifjizs{; esa iqu% vH;kosnu izLrqr djrs gSa] rks muds Onkjk izLrqr ,sls vH;kosnuksa ij] vH;kosnu lfefr Onkjk iqu% fopkj dj fy;k tkps A ;fn iqu% fopkj ds ckn vfuok;Z #i ls lsokfuo`r fd;s x;s fdlh 'kkldh; lsod dks] lsok esa iqu% fy;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS] rks mldh lsokof/k dk fu;ferhdj.k mijksDr lanfHkZr Kki fn0 22-08-2000 dh df.Mdk&6 eas n'kkZ;s vuqlkj fd;k tk;sxk A” 4. The State Government vide circular dated 23.06.2006 has further provided that in case the person is directed to be reinstated on his representation being allowed then the period for which he remained out of service, shall be considered in accordance with the the provisions of Fundamental Rules 54. 5. In view of the aforesaid directions/circulars of the State Government, it is fairly stated by the learned Senior counsel for the respondents that as the case of the petitioners, who have been compulsorily retired on the basis of circular dated 22.08.2000 without taking into consideration the subsequent circular of the State Government specifically the circular dated 20.03.2003, shall be re-considered in view of circular dated 20.03.2003 by applying the modified criteria and an 4 appropriate decision thereon shall be taken and if necessary, consequent orders under Fundamental Rules 54 shall also be passed by the respondents. 6. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondents the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed to the extent indicated above and is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the amended/modified criteria provided in the circular dated 20.03.2003 and appropriate orders be passed thereon. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner is reversed, all legal consequences shall follow. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and with a view to expedite the matter it is directed that the aforesaid exercise be undertaken and completed by the respondents as far as possible within a period of three months. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. (R.S. Jha) Judge msp 5 6