Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeshwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 30 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058661
CM-6041-CWP-2024 and CM-6042-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-5059-2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:058661
(102) CM-6041-CWP-2024 and
CM-6042-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-5059-2009
Date of Decision : April 30, 2024
Rajeshwar .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-6041-CWP-2024
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Annexure A-1 is taken on record.
CM-6042-CWP-2024
Present application has been filed for fixing the actual date of
hearing of the main writ petition.
Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.
Mr. Harish Nain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He raises no objection for the
grant of prayer as raised in the present application.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. On joint
request of learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up
for hearing today itself.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058661
CM-6041-CWP-2024 and CM-6042-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-5059-2009
1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated
20.01.2009 (Annexure P-11) by which, the petitioner who was working as
Veterinary and Livestock Development Assistant has not been given
extension in service beyond the age of 55 years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was no
adverse report of the petitioner and retiring the petitioner from service upon
attaining the age of 55 years, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the present case is totally arbitrary and illegal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has achieved the targets whatever is required for during his service career
hence, treating the petitioner as deadwood so as not to grant him extension
in service beyond the age of 55 years is totally arbitrary and illegal.
4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply
wherein, they have stated that there are adverse entries in the confidential
report of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08
and in the year 2007-08 and as the confidential report of the petitioner is
below average.
5. As per the respondents, even the targets given to the petitioner
have not been completed and the detailed reasons qua the non achieving of
the targets have been mentioned in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the reply.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
7. The employee is entitled to continue in service upto the age of
superannuation under the Rules governing the service but as per the Rules
governing the service, jurisdiction has been given to the employer to assess
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058661
CM-6041-CWP-2024 and CM-6042-CWP-2024 in/and
the record of an employee so as to grant him/her extension in service
beyond the age of 55 years. In the present case, the petitioner's claim to
continue upto the age of superannaution has been curtailed by the
respondents by not granting him extension in service beyond the age of 55
years.
8. It is a settled principle of law that the decision not to allow an
employee to continue beyond the age of 55 years is to be taken on the basis
of the service record of an employee. It is also a settled principle of law that
total record of an employee is to be taken into account so as to decide
whether the employee is a deadwood so as to grant him extension in service
upto the age of superannuation.
9. In the present case, the respondents have given the details of
the service record of the petitioner. As per the record of the petitioner, in the
preceding 7 years from the date of passing of the impugned order dated
20.01.2009 (Annexure P-11), out of four confidential reports, three
confidential reports are average or below average. Further, as per the reply
filed by the respondents, the petitioner never achieved the targets and
rather, the number of animals which were under the custody of the
petitioner had gone down consistently. Overall assessment that the record
of an employee should be 70% so as to allow him to continue upto the age
of superannuation hence, it cannot be said that keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the present case i.e. service record of the petitioner and the
performance in the last preceding seven years from the date of passing of
the said impugned order, was good enough so as to retain him in service.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.869 of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058661
CM-6041-CWP-2024 and CM-6042-CWP-2024 in/and
1987 with Civil Appeal NO.870 of 1987 titled as Baikuntha Nath Das vs.
Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, decided on 19.02.1992 to
contend that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service upto the age of
superannuation.
11. It may be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had
laid down the parameters in paragraph 32 of the said judgment. The case of
the petitioner is satisfied so as to not to grant extension in service beyond 55
years of age on the basis of the parameters mentioned in paragraph 32 in
Baikuntha Nath Das's case (supra) . There is no allegation of mala fide.
There is no allegation that the order passed by the respondents is stigmatic
or by way of punishment. In the present case, the Government has passed
an order on subjective satisfaction keeping in view the service record of the
petitioner, the details of which have been given hereinbefore. Hence, it
cannot be said that the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in paragraph 32 in Baikuntha Nath Das's case (supra), have been
violated in any manner by passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2009
(Annexure P-11).
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause
notice was given to the petitioner before passing of the said order.
13. It is conceded that there is rule requiring the issuance of a show
cause notice for not granting extension in service beyond the age of 55
years. No such rule has been brought to the notice of this Court.
14. Further, once not granting extension in service to the petitioner
beyond the age of 55 years is not a punishment, no enquiry is liable to be
held. Hence, the argument that the impugned order dated 20.01.2009
(Annexure P-11) passed by the respondents is violative of rules of natural
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058661
CM-6041-CWP-2024 and CM-6042-CWP-2024 in/and
justice, cannot be accepted.
15. No other argument was raised.
16. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the present case.
17. Dismissed.
April 30, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
