Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 495 (PAT)

Kamata Pd. Singh v. Food Corporation of India

1996-08-12

J.N.DUBEY

body1996
JUDGMENT This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.6.1993 of the respondent no. 1 retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.1.1994. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Central Government Class IV employee on 29.8.1960 and according to the Rules he was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.1.1996, therefore, the respondents were not legally justified in retiring him on completion of 58 years of age. It was further claimed that the Central Government ceased to perform certain functions of the Department of Food, the Regional Directorate of Food, the procurement Director and the Pay and Accounts office of the Department of Food under section 13 of the Food Corporation Act , 1964 (for short ‘Act’) and are being discharged by the Food Corporation of India. Accordingly, the service of the petitioner was transferred to Food Corporation of India under section Central Government employee including the age of retirement. In view of the fact that the age of retirement of the petitioner in the Central Government was 60 years and his services were transferred to Food Corporation of India under section 12A of the Act on the same terms and condition, he could not be legally retired on attaining the age of 58 years. 3. On the other hand the case of the respondents is that it is true that the petitioner was a Central Government Class IV employee and his service were transferred to Food Corporation of India U/s 122A of the Act but in view of his unauthorized absence for more than nine years he was granted fresh appointment on 21.3.1987 and, therefore, he cannot claim any benefit on that account. According to the leaned counsel the petitioner remained on unauthorized absence for a long period of nine years and, therefore, he was liable to be dismissed on that ground. However the corporation taking lenient view decided to give him fresh appointment on 21.3.1987. The order dated 21.3.87 was dully communicated to the petitioner, who accepted the same without any objection. The said order not having been challenged in any proceeding has becomes final and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take any advantage for his being a former Central Government employee. However the corporation taking lenient view decided to give him fresh appointment on 21.3.1987. The order dated 21.3.87 was dully communicated to the petitioner, who accepted the same without any objection. The said order not having been challenged in any proceeding has becomes final and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take any advantage for his being a former Central Government employee. Since the date of retirement of class IV employee in Food corporation of India is 58 years, he has been rightly retired on completion of that age. The petitioner has been retired on attaining the age of superannuation and his claim, that the impugned order amounts to his premature retirement, is wrong. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner was a Central Government employee and his services were transferred to the Food Corporation of India U/s 12A of the Act he could not be retired before attaining the age of 60 years. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner was grated fresh appointment on 21.3.1987 taking lenient view of his unauthorized absence of long nine years, he was not entitled to claim any benefit for his being a Central Government employee initially. Having considered the argument of the learned counsel I am of the view that the respondents have committed no error in retiring the petitioner on his completing the age of 58 years. In view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed afresh in the Food Corporation of India on 21.3.1987 he was not entitled to claim any benefit for his being a Central Government employee initially. All the rights and privileges of the petitioner of Central Government employee came to an end when he was granted afresh appointment on 21.3.87. The fresh appointment was granted to petitioner by the respondents apparently by taking lenient view about his long unauthorised absence of over nine years. The petitioner has now claimed that he was not at fault in remaining absent for over nine years but in view of the fact that the petitioner accepted the fresh appointment on 21.3.87 it is not necessary for me to enter into thus controversy. 6. The petitioner has now claimed that he was not at fault in remaining absent for over nine years but in view of the fact that the petitioner accepted the fresh appointment on 21.3.87 it is not necessary for me to enter into thus controversy. 6. The fact that the petitioner had knowledge of the order is proved from his endorsement on the letter dated 21.3.87, annexure B to the writ petition. The petitioner having accepted the fresh appointment and not having challenged the same in any proceeding, cannot claim that he was entitled for any benefit on account of his being a former Central Government employee. This being so his claim that he was liable to retire on attaining the age of 60 years and not on 58 years has to be rejected. 7. The impugned order does not suffer from any error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record, which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. In the result the writ petition falls and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.