Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 206 (MP)

Ramesh Chandra Dubey v. State of M. P.

2005-02-09

S.K.GANGELE

body2005
JUDGMENT The petitioner had filed this petition before the State Administrative Tribunal. After abolition of the Tribunal, this case has been transferred to this Court. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order of his compulsory retirement from service dated 13.12.2001 and 15.12.2001, issued by the Agriculture Engineer, Indore Division, Indore. It is mentioned in the order that the petitioner is hereby retired compulsorily under rule 42(1) (b) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, in public interest after approval of the Government. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Tractor Driver vide order dated 25.5.1974. He was dec1ared quasi permanent on 29.10.1985, and vide order dated 12.9.2004, the name of the petitioner was recommended for kramonnati and was granted pay-scale of Rs. 3500-5200-4000-6000 w.e.f. 19.4.1999 vide order dated 12.9.2000 and thereafter he was retired from service compulsorily vide order dated 13.12.2001. The respondents have filed the return. It is submitted by the respondents that the Government took a decision to scrutinise the cases of the Government servants after completing 50 years of age and 20 years of service in public interest and consider them for compulsory retirement and, as per the direction dated 22.8.2000 Annexure R-1 filed along with the return, a committee was constituted at district level consisting of District Collector as President and other officers of the district. The committee has to consider the cases on the ground of honesty and integrity, deficiency, physical fitness, and for that purpose previous CR of the employees has to be considered and it has to be considered that' whether there was deficiency in his work. As per the above criteria the committee was constituted with regard to consider the case of the petitioner and thereafter the case of the petitioner was examined. It was found that w.e.f. 1996-97 to 1999-2000 the petitioner was awarded C grade and from the perusal of the service record right from the 1974, it was found that overall CR of the petitioner was less than B grade and it was also found that there was deficiency continuously in the working of the petitioner and he did not take any interest in service. Thereafter a report was submitted to the Government on 14.2.2001 and after taking approval from the department and Government on 3.10.2001 the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed. Thereafter a report was submitted to the Government on 14.2.2001 and after taking approval from the department and Government on 3.10.2001 the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed. There was no illegality in the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the committee' recommended the name of the petitioner, but it was never approved by the Government. The Government did not apply its mind at all with regard to compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner was given kramonnati in the year 2000 and the same criteria was adopted in the time bound promotion scheme, hence, the petitioner cannot be retired compulsorily. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after verifying the entire service record of the petitioner, it was found that he was not an efficient person and as per rule 42(2) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the petitioner was retired compulsorily. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is clear from the return filed by the respondents, that the screening committee screened the entire service record of the petitioner objectively, specifically his 5 years' CRs were not good, three were of grade B and one year's CR was of Grade C and thereafter considering his entire service record, it was found that his CR was below than average and he did not take any interest in working. On the basis of above, the committee has recommended his name for compulsory retirement as per the criteria laid down by the Government and after perusal of the entire record, it is clear from order dated 3.10.2001 that the State Government and Head of the Department had given their approval for the same after examining the record. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Government did not apply its mind or it was not approved by the Government. It is clear from the object of the scheme that the criteria adopted for time-bound promotion is different from that of compulsory retirement. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition. It is dismissed without any order as to costs.