Delhi High Court
S.P. Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 IIIAD Delhi 527, 1999 (49) DRJ 523
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be related as under.
The petitioner was working as Sub Inspector upto April 1983. By order dated 10.3.1983 the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector. The petitioner had passed the Promotion Course required for the purpose of eligibility of promotion as Inspector. In January 1984 the petitioner was reverted to the post of Sub Inspector. Subsequently, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversal on the ground that he was promoted on rank basis and cannot be reverted and that is illegal. The case of the respondents is that as per the rules the petitioner in the promotion post was to be on probation. His performance was not satisfactory and, therefore, he was reverted and he was not confirmed in the post of Inspector. Under Rule 19 of the CIFS Rules 1969 the petitioner had to undergo probation for a period of two years. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner had no right to the post of Inspector asif he
had been appointed on permanent basis.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Puri submitted that the petitioner was not even served with order of reversal. That is not correct. The petitioner himself had made a representation and a copy of the repre-
sentation is available on the files produced by the respondents. Therefore, the order of reversion cannot be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it was not communicated to him. The petitioner cannot claim to have been appointed without any probation and, therefore, the order of reversion was in accordance with law and the petitioner cannot challenge the same.
4. The petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that there is stigma attached to the petitioner and, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement is vitiated.
5. I have perused the files. The respondents had watched the performance of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the performance was not satisfactory the order of compulsory retirement was passed. In my view, the
petitioner has not made out any case for interference.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Puri submitted that his retirement benefits have not been given to him except payment of Rs.1,25,000/- which was made as per the order made on 31.3.1995 by the
Court. The petitioner's right to get retirement benefits on the basis of compulsory retirement cannot be denied.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Sohail Dutt submitted that the respondents have always been ready and willing to pay the petitioner whatever that is due to him. On this aspect about the claim of the peti-
tioner for retirement benefits, there can be no dispute. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders fixing the pension of the petitioner and such orders shall be passed on or before 30.6.1999.
8. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition are rejected. Writ petition stands disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.
