LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 16th , 2009. Parties Name Iqbal Kaur and another ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS The Punjab State and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Jasbir Singh, J. Judgment. By an order dated May 22, 1987, Dr. Mohinder Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2, was prematurely retired from service, in public interest, by invoking the provisions of Rule 3.1(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. Shri Mohinder Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5409 of 1987 laying challenge to the above said order. During pendency of that writ petition, he died and LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2008 -2- vide order dated November 22, 2002, appellants and respondents No. 5 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives. By order dated May 6, 2008, passed by a learned Single Judge, and impugned in this appeal, the said writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. In the writ petition, it was case of the petitioner therein that to pass order of premature retirement, sufficient material was not available with the competent authority. Order having been passed after crossing the age of 55 years was not justified. In reply, filed by the official respondents, it was stated that the order under challenge was passed after taking note of entire service record of the petitioner. It was further stated that the employee concerned had to his credit many average, below average reports and also minor and major punishments. It was further stated that he had remained under suspension for a period of more than three years. The learned Single Judge, after looking into the entire service record of the employee and punishments, suffered by him, came to the conclusion that order of premature retirement was passed in public interest as the same was aimed at clearing the dead wood from service. Before us, Shri Sethi has raised an argument that in this case, premature retirement of the employee was ordered after he had crossed the age of 55 years , as such, as per law, such an order cannot be sustained. He further argued that requisite material was not available before the competent authority to pass the order under challenge. Having heard counsel for the appellant, we feel that when passing the order under challenge on May 6, 2008, the learned Single Judge has looked into entire service record of the concerned employee. In the LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2008 -3- written-statement, filed by the official respondents, in para No. 5, it was specifically stated that for the years 1964-65 to 1969-70, work of the concerned employee was assessed as average. For the year 1973-74, ACR was not available. Again for the years 1975-76 to 1977-78, assessment was average. For the year 1978-79, assessment was below average and it was further mentioned that the employee's integrity was doubtful. It is also not in dispute that the concerned employee remained under suspension from March 26, 1979, to May 26, 1982. He was also charge-sheeted for imposition of major penalty and on conclusion of enquiry, punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect was imposed on May 6,1982. It has also come on record that on conclusion of another enquiry, which was initiated to impose major penalty, vide order dated March 12, 1985, two annual grade increments were ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect. It is not in dispute that as per instructions of the State of Punjab dated June 22, 1981, even a single entry of doubtful integrity was sufficient to order premature retirement of an employee. Merely because requisite order was not passed before the employee concerned had completed 55 years of age is no ground to set aside any order passed thereafter. As per the relevant rules and instructions on the subject, even on completion of 55 years, under the circumstances, referred to above, review to grant extension in service can be undertaken and if service record of an employee is not up to the mark, his premature retirement can be ordered. Shri Sethi has failed to show us any rule or instructions to the contrary. Otherwise also, premature retirement order under challenge does not amount to punishment. Dr. Mohinder Singh, the concerned employee, has died during pendency of the writ petition. The appellants and other LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2008 -4- legal heirs, as per rules, are entitled to get family pension and other benefits. In view of facts, mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE ( T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE January 16th , 2009. DKC