Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1280 (ALL)

DWARIKA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-04-21

RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.P. Singh appearing for the respondents. 2. This intra Court appeal has been filed challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.8.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41874 of 2006. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present Special Appeal in brief are that the appellant-petitioner was appointed as peon in Judgeship Ballia on 1.2.1985 and thereafter he continued so in service. Sri Sarvesh Kumar Pandey on 4.6.2006 became District Judge, Ballia and he in view of the provision under Fundamental Rules of the Financial Hand Book Volume-2 constituted a committee consisting of one Additional District Judge as Chairman and Civil Judge (Junior Division) as member for screening of Class-IV and Class-III employees, who had lost their utility to the judgeship. The committee after screening the list found as many as eight employees, out of which three were class-III employees and five were Class-IV employees, who could be retired compulsorily. Consequently, the committee recommended for compulsory retirement of those eight employees. The appellant-petitioner was one of them. The District Judge agreeing with the recommendation of the committee and exercising the powers under Fundamental Rules 56(C) of the Financial Hand Book Volume-2 paras 2 to 4 ordered for compulsory retirement of all the eight employees vide its order dated 11.7.2006. 4. The appellant-petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41874 of 2006, Dwarika Singh v. State of U.P. through Legal Remembrances Secretary Law U.P. Lucknow and another. The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition vide judgment and order dated 29.8.2006. The appellant-petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has preferred the present Special Appeal. 5. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Syed Imam Raza, the then Senior Administrative Officer (SAO) was also ordered to be compulsorily retired by the District Judge. He had preferred departmental appeal before the High Court challenging his compulsory retirement. His appeal was allowed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.V. Sharma, the then Administrative Judge, Ballia inter-alia on the ground that the District Judge, Ballia had constituted the screening committee consisting of an Additional District Judge as Chairman and a Civil Judge (Junior Division) as member. He had preferred departmental appeal before the High Court challenging his compulsory retirement. His appeal was allowed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.V. Sharma, the then Administrative Judge, Ballia inter-alia on the ground that the District Judge, Ballia had constituted the screening committee consisting of an Additional District Judge as Chairman and a Civil Judge (Junior Division) as member. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) was an unexperienced officer, who could not travel against the direction of the District Judge. He had got no administrative experienced too. The District Judge was expected to constitute a committee of senior most Additional District Judges, who were having long experience of judicial and administrative work so that they could exercise their well considered and independent views while recommending compulsory retirement of the employees. In this way the Administrative Judge found that the committee constituted by the District Judge for screening of the employees was not proper and up to the mark. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge allowed the appeal of Syed Imam Raza. Since the Administrative Judge has already held that the committee constituted by the District Judge for screening the class-III and class-IV employees not well experienced and proper, therefore, the compulsory retirement of the appellant-petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the committee was also illegal and the Special Appeal deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 6. We have summoned the record of the High Court which contains the decision of the Administrative Judge in the matter of Syed Imam Raza, the then Senior Administrative Officer (SAO) of Ballia Judgeship. We have perused the decision of the Administrative Judge in the matter of Syed Imam Raza, the then Senior Administrative Officer (SAO), who had been ordered to be compulsory retired and whose departmental appeal had been allowed by the then Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge in para-7 of the order has made the following observations about the constitution of screening committee, which is being extracted below : “In the matter of compulsory retirement the screening committee should have been constituted comprising some senior most judicial officers, but the District Judge constituted the screening committee consisting of an Additional District Judge and a Civil Judge (Junior Division). It also does not appeal to reason as to why senior most officers were not included in the screening committee. It also does not appeal to reason as to why senior most officers were not included in the screening committee. A Civil Judge (Junior Division) who has no administrative experience, not well versed with Government Orders etc. may fall in the line of the District Judge and might have not gone against wishes of the District Judge, otherwise, such a glaring error would not have been committed.” 7. The Administrative Judge had found that the committee had committed glaring mistake while taking decision of compulsory retirement of Syed Imam Raza. If the constitution of committee was not proper as against Syed Imam Raza then how it could be treated to be proper as against the appellant-petitioner. Since the appeal of Raza has been allowed by the Administrative Judge interalia on the ground that the formation of the committee by the District Judge, Ballia was not proper, therefore, the recommendation of the committee for compulsory retirement of the employees cannot be said to be proper. The Special Appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed on this score alone and the impugned order dated 11.7.2006 passed by the District Judge, Ballia regarding compulsory retirement of the appellant-petitioner on the recommendation of the screening committee and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.8.2006 deserves to be set aside. 8. The Special Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.8.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41874 of 2006 (Dwarika Singh v. State of U.P. and others) is set aside and the Civil Misc. Writ Petition detailed above is allowed and the order of the learned District Judge, Ballia dated 11.7.2006 retiring the appellant-petitioner compulsorily from his service is set aside and the appellant-petitioner will be reinstated in service with all consequential service benefits forthwith. ————