Pavitra Kumar Hembrom vs Union Of India And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 2932 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                     W.P.(C) No.522/2013
%                                                               11th July, 2013

PAVITRA KUMAR HEMBROM                                ..... Petitioner
                Through:                 Mr. S.C. Soren, Advocate.

                           versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                               ..... Respondents

                  Through:               Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate with
                                         Mr. Rajewra Parshad, Advocate for
                                         respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition, petitioner impugns the order of the

respondent No.3/Reserve Bank of India compulsorily retiring the petitioner

in public interest. Respondent No.3 has exercised its powers under

Regulation 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. This

Regulation is identical with Fundamental Rule 56(j) of FRSR as applicable

to Central Government servants.

2. The law with respect to interference by the Court in orders of

compulsory retirement in public interest is now well settled. No doubt,

judicial review is permissible, however orders of compulsory retirement are

only interfered with when there is found malafides or wholly unjustified

basis to cause compulsory retirement of the officer in public interest. It is

settled law that the compulsory retirement in public interest is neither a

punishment nor is it stigmatic nor does it result in loss of retiremental

benefits.

3. This case was listed on 29.1.2013 when at the request of the

petitioner this case was adjourned for today. Petitioner has filed additional

documents. Petitioner was compulsorily retired in public interest w.e.f

14.3.2008. Petitioner has filed the Annual Appraisal Reports for the years

from 2002-03 to 2007-08 and which shows that in the four years from 2002-

03 to 2005-06, petitioner received around 41/42 out of 100 marks. For the

year 2006-07 i.e 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2007 petitioner only received 35 out of

100 marks. For the period from May to June 2007 i.e two months petitioner

received only 29 marks.

4. In view of the aforesaid reports, it is quite clear that

performance of the petitioner in six years before retirement was just above

average and below average in the last two years. I therefore do not find any

ground to hold that there existed malafides or lack of adequate basis to pass

the order of compulsory retirement. Though, counsel for the petitioner

sought to rely upon the order of the National Commission for Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes, however, it is not the satisfaction of that body

but the satisfaction of the employer which decides the compulsory

retirement in public interest of an employee. No document is filed before

me that there cannot be compulsory retirement in public interest unless there

is counselling given to an officer and as has been so urged before me by the

counsel for the petitioner.

5. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere. The

writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JULY 11, 2013 Ne