LPA No. 512 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 512 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.07.2011 Tejinder Pal Singh Mago ..Appellant Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, Present : Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** M.M.KUMAR, .J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 12.07.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the order of premature retirement at the age of 55 years passed against the appellant on 18.8.1997 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same has been quashed. 2. The basic reason for compulsory retirement of the appellant disclosed in the impugned order dated 18.8.1997 (Annexure P-7) is that the appellant earned adverse remarks in respect of the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and LPA No. 512 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2] 1994-95. In para No. 4 of the order it was further stated that there were serious charges against the appellant and the enquiry was in progress. The learned Single Judge had found that one of the enquiries was dropped and in the other enquiries merely punishment of censure was inflicted. Even the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.Rs. were expunged. On the basis of a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Gujarat V. Umedbhai M.Patel JT 2001(3) S.C. 223, the learned Single Judge opined that the order of compulsory retirement would suffer from legal infirmity as the record of the appellant had undergone changes albeit after the passing of the order. However, while awarding the relief, the appellant has been deprived of the payment of back wages, yet the relief of consequential benefits including re-fixation of pay and pension have been issued. The appellant did not feel satisfy with the relief given by the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length. 4. The only limited relief claimed by the appellant is that once the order of compulsory retirement is found to be defective, then the appellant would be entitled to payment of actual salary of three years. We are not impressed with the aforesaid contention because the appellant at the time of his compulsory retirement had bad service record. Even some enquires were pending against him. The aforesaid record of the A.C.Rs. has undergone changed later. Moreover, the appellant has not worked during that period, therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge by declining the appellant of back wages LPA No. 512 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3] would not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Once the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion which is based on relevant factors it would not be proper to interfere with the same. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) 29.07.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'