CWP No.12598 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12598 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: March 18, 2010 SURAJ BHAN ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: NONE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. GAGANDEEP SINGH WASU, DAG, HARYANA. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 13.5.1989, vide which he was compulsorily retired from service. The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 1.4.1954, in the erstwhile State of PEPSU and thereafter the petitioner served in the Forest Department in Joint Punjab after merger of PEPSU. After bifurcation of the State into the States of Punjab and Haryana, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the State of Haryana and he was promoted to the post of Forester on 9.1.1979. The work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and therefore, by taking into account his Annual Confidential Reports, he was ordered to retire compulsorily vide order Annexure P-2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken into consideration his service record before passing the impugned order CWP No.12598 of 1990 -2- (Annexure P-2) and further that as per the Instructions of the Government, a person having good service record of 70% should not normally be retired prematurely. It has been categorically averred by the petitioner that the petitioner had 100% good service record and therefore, the order of his premature retirement is liable to be quashed. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein it has been averred that as per Government Instructions dated 16.8.1983 (Annexure R-1), if 70% Confidential Reports for the last 10 years are found 'Good' and above category, only then the case of granting extension can be considered. It has been averred that as the petitioner did not have 70% of his Confidential Reports 'Good' and above category, hence he was compulsorily retired. Details of last 10 years of Confidential Reports of the petitioner have also been given. After going through the reply filed by the respondents, I find that the petitioner has not earned 70% 'Good' or above Confidential Reports, and hence he was rightly retired prematurely at the age of 55 years and as such was not entitled to the grant of extension in service. I find no infirmity in the order (Annexure P-2) and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. March 18, 2010 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE