Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/155/2022 on 16 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2022
16TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
BETWEEN:
Rekha Shrikunj .....Appellant.
And
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anil K. Bisht, learned
Additional Chief Standing
Counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Mr. Navnish Negi, learned
counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
Delay Condonation Application (IA No.01 of 2022)
The appellant seeks condonation of eleven days
delay in preferring the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in
support of the delay condonation application, and since the
same is not fairly opposed by the learned counsels for the
respondents, we allow the application and condone the delay.
Special Appeal No.155 of 2022
3. The present Special Appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 29.04.2022, rendered by the learned Single
Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.375 of 2020, preferred by the
appellant, and in Writ Petition (S/S) No.552 of 2020,
preferred by Mr. Kunwan Singh.
4. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by a
common judgment since common questions of law and
similar facts arose for consideration before the learned Single
Judge. In both the writ petitions, the respective petitioner
challenged their respective compulsory retirement by the
same impugned order dated 14.01.2020, issued by
respondent no.2 in the writ petition, i.e. the District Judge,
District Haridwar. The compulsory retirement was founded
upon the report of the Screening Committee dated
13.12.2019, as well as the order of the Administrative Officer
dated 24.12.2019, directing compulsory retirement of two
writ petitioners aforesaid, including the appellant herein in
exercise of inherent powers under Rule 56(C) of the Financial
Handbook, Part-II to IV.
5. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that
the learned Single Judge has exhaustively discussed the law
on compulsory retirement. It emerges from the precedents
taken note of in the impugned judgment, that compulsory
retirement is not necessarily punitive. The employer has the
right to compulsorily retire an employee who is considered as
'deadwood', or whose work is not found to be upto the mark.
An employee who could be compulsorily retired on attaining a
certain age, has no vested right to continue to serve beyond
that age, in case the employer decides to compulsorily retire
the employee after taking into consideration the work and
conduct of the employee.
6. Learned counsels for the respondents submit that
the Special Appeal preferred by other writ petitioner Mr.
Kunwar Singh, against the same impugned judgment, was
dismissed by this Court bearing Special Appeal No.164 of
20222, on 21.07.2022.
7. The impugned judgment shows that the appellant
was awarded censure entries on the basis of surprise
inspection conducted on 23.08.2016. It was also observed
that there was no improvement in the conduct of the
appellant despite warnings. She was also not found to be
putting to use the computer provided to her for discharge of
her duties.
8. The appellant did not make any allegations of
malafides against any of the members of the Screening
Committee, who examined her case along with the cases of
others.
9. In our view, the appellant has not made out a case
for interference with the impugned judgment, as her
compulsory retirement was founded upon consideration of
germane aspects relating to her work and conduct. The
examination of the same by the Screening Committee was
founded upon her conduct as reflected in the records.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit
in this special appeal, and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
11. At this stage, Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for
the appellant, submits that the appellant's retiral dues have
not been released till date.
12. If that be so, we direct the respondents to forthwith
examine the appellant's claim towards her retiral dues, and
the same should be released at the earliest, preferably within
next four weeks.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(R.C. KHULBE, J.)
Dated: 16th September, 2022
NISHANT
