Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRE. FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secre. Food & Civil Supplies & Others - WRIT - A No. 10136 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 3210 (20 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.6

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10136 of  2002

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava......................................Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others........................................Respondents.

********

Hon.Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard Sri S.P.Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner was working as a Supply Inspector. By an order dated 27.10.2001 issued by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, Lucknow he was compulsory retired from the service at the age of 53 years. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement preferred the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no material before the Screening Committee to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was required to be compulsory retired in public interest or on any other ground. Further the entry relied upon by the Screening Committee had not become final, inasmuch as,  the petitioner had made a representation which was pending consideration before the authority concerned and, therefore, in view of the explanation to Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, an adverse entry had to be excluded from consideration by the Screening Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Rule 56(c), the petitioner could only be compulsorily retired at the age of 50 years and could not be compulsory retired after the petitioner crossed 53 years.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced the record. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the performance of the petitioner for the last several years was considered and entries in his service book was taken into consideration which indicated, that his integrity was not certifiable. Therefore, in my opinion, the relevant record was duly considered by the Screening Committee and the contention of the petitioner that there was no material before the Selection Committed is misconceived.

It transpires that the petitioner was suspended in the year 1994 on certain charges and upon the completion of the inquiry, the petitioner was awarded stoppage of increment for a period of five years, non-payment of the remaining salary for the period when the petitioner remained in suspension and  an adverse entry in the service record. It transpires, that against the aforesaid  order of punishment the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Food Commissioner by an order dated 15.7.1999 and thereafter, he preferred a representation before the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow which is alleged be pending. In view of the aforesaid, the explanation to Rule 56(2) does not debar the Screening Committee from considering the adverse entry. The contention of the learned  counsel for the petitioner that since the representation was pending, the said entries could not be considered by the Screening Committee, is incorrect.

In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner can only be compulsory retired when he reaches the age of 50 years, is misconceived. From a perusal of Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, it is clear that a Government Servant can be retired at any time   after he attains the age of 50 years.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error in the order of compulsory retirement. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Dated: 20.9.2005

AKJ


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.