Uttarakhand High Court
Kunwar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.164 OF 2022
21TH JULY, 2022
Kunwar Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Shri Punit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
Delay Condonation Application (IA/2/2021).
The appellant seeks condonation of 22 days' delay in
filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the application, and since the same
is not fairly opposed by the learned counsel for respondent-
State, we allow the same and condone the delay.
SPA No.164 of 2022
2. The present appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.552 of 2020 preferred
by the appellant-writ petitioner. By the impugned judgment,
the said writ petition, along with another Writ Petition (S/S)
No.375 of 2020 preferred by one Rekha Shrikunj, has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The petitioner preferred the said petition to assail
his compulsory retirement in exercise of the powers under
Rule 56(C) of the Financial Handbook Volume 2, Part II to IV.
The compulsory retirement was effected on 14.01.2020 in
pursuance of the report of the Screening Committee dated
13.12.2019. At the relevant time, petitioner was serving as a
Stenographer. He was appointed in that capacity on
04.08.1992. The petitioner claimed that on account of his
efficient discharge of duties, on 18.4.2019, he was sanctioned
a special service benefit by way of monetary remuneration.
He was also sanctioned the promotional pay scale and made a
permanent employee in the organization of the District
Judgeship on 12.07.2016.
4. The respondents opposed the petition by
contending that the overall performance of the petitioner was
assessed by the Screening Committee. Over the years, the
performance of the petitioner had been adversely commented
upon on several occasions. The Screening Committee took
into account and assessed the conduct and performance of
petitioner considering, inter alia, the following four instances:-
" (i) o"kZ 1998 dh okf"kZd iaftadk esa lEcfU/kr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ds }kjk beyk o VkbZfiax esa O;kdj.kh; =qfV;k¡ jgus rFkk fgUnh i<+us
o O;kdj.k lq/kkjus dk lq>ko nsrs gq, fVIi.kha vafdr dh xbZ gS ftls
ek0 tuin U;k;k/kh'k gfj}kj }kjk iq"V Hkh fd;k x;k gSA
¼ ii½ o"kZ 1999&2000 dh okf"kZd iaftdk esa lEcfU/kr ds }kjk
dk;Z dh xq.koRrk esa lq/kkj djus dk;Z esa n{krk izkIr djus gsrq
esgur djus dh vko';drk gksus dh fVII.kh vafdr dh xbZ gS ftls
ek0 tuin U;k;k/kh'k gfj}kj }kjk iqf"V Hkh fd;k x;k gSA
¼iii½ ek0 tuin U;k;k/kh'k }kjk iz'kklfud vkns'k la[;k 145
fnukafdr 06-11-2013 ls dkfeZd dks Vad.k esa lq/kkj ykus dh psrkouh
nh xbZ rFkk ;g Hkh psrkouh nh xbZ fd ;fn lq/kkj ugh yk;k x;k
rks ewy in ij izR;kpfrZr djus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA
¼iv½ dkfeZd }kjk U;k;ky; vij flfoy tt ofj"B [k.M :M+dh
esa fu;qfDr ds nkSjku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds vkns'[email protected]'kksa dk ikyu
u djus rFkk VkbZfiax dk;Z le; ls iwoZ u djus ij mRiUu vlqfo/kk
,oa dfBukbZ ij ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk iqu% fn, x, funsZ'kksa ij xSj
ftEesnkjkuk mRrj fn, tkus ij ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 22-
02-2018 dks ek0 tuin U;k;k/kh'k] gfj}kj dks dkfeZd ds dk;Z
vkpj.k ds lEcU/k esa vk[;k izLrqr dh xbZA"
5. The decision to compulsory retire an employee
upon his attaining the requisite age is an administrative
decision taken by the competent authority based on the
conduct and performance of the employee. In the present
case, the Screening Committee was constituted for this
2
purpose which considered the conduct and performance of
several employees including the petitioner. It is not the
petitioner's case that any of the members of the Screening
Committee had any grudge or mala fides against the
petitioner. It is not for this Court to sit in judicial review over
an administrative decision taken by the respondent while
assessing the petitioner's work and conduct. An employee has
no vested right to continue in employment past the age of
compulsory retirement. Continuation in service, beyond the
said age, is dependent upon the assessment of the work and
conduct of the employee which can only be done by the
competent authority who has to take work from and deal with
the employee on day-to-day basis.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit
in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
_____________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_____________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
st
Dated: 21 July, 2022
Rdang
