LexOM PRAKASH ASATI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 1 S.C.R. 246 OM PRAKASH ASATI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 13896-13897 of 2008) JANUARY 13, 2012 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Service law: Retirement - Pre-mature retirement from C service - Jal Nigam adopted criterion for screening the claim of employees for continuation of service - Order of premature retirement against several employees including petitioner - The c1iterion adopted by Jal Nigam set aside by the High Court and the said decision attained finality - Whether setting D aside of the criterion adopted by Jal Nigam would ipso facto result in the negation of the impugned order by which the petitioner was prematurely retired from service - Held: The order passed by the Jal Nigam, prematurely retiring the petitioner from its employment, cannot be set aside merely E because the criterion adopted by the Jal Nigam has been set aside - The veracity of the impugned order will have to be examined independently of the criterion so as to determine, whether or not the impugned order is sustainable on the basis of the record taken into consideration by the Screening F Committee - The petitioner was punished 3 times in the preceding 4 years - Besides the gradual deterioration in his career-graph noticeable f.·om the last 7 years of his service, 4 annual reports assessed the work and cc;mduct of the petitioner as "average" - The service record of the petitioner G was objectively evaluated - Thus the passing of the impugned order cannot be described as arbitrary or unfair in any manner. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer, in the Local Self Engineering Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 3.3.1974. In 1975, the Uttar Pradesh H 246 OM PRAKASH ASATI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 247 Water Supply and Sewerage Act was enacted. The said A enactment resulted in the creation of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam. In 1976, the services of the petitioner came to be allocated to the Jal Nigam, where the petitioner was absorbed against the post of Assistant Engineer, on regular basis. While in the employment of the Jal Nigam, B the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. On his attaining the age of 50 years in January 2001, his claim for retention in service was placed before a Screening Con:imittee. A departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner. The Screening Committee c found the petitioner fit to continue in service. By orders dated 1.9.2005, several employees of the Jal Nigam, including the petitioner, were prematurely retired from service. The petitioner filed a writ petition on the ground that the criterions adopted by Jal Nigam for D screening the claim of the employees of the Jal Nigam were illegal and in complete derogation of Fundamental Rule 56(c). The petitioner relied upon the two decisions of the High Court whereby the criterions adopted by the Jal Nigam in retiring its empl,yees under Fundamental E Rule 56(c) were held illegal. The said decisions of the High Court had attained finality. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of premature retirement. The instant special leave petitions were filed challenging the order of the High Court. F Dismissing the special leave petitions, the Court HELD: 1. In the two judgments rendered by the High Court which were relied upon by the petitioner, it was held, that the criterion adopted by the Screening G Committee for prematurely retiring the employees of the Jal Nigam was illegal and riot in consonance with law. The validity of the criterion adopted by the Jal Nigam for prematurely retiring its employees .is a pure question of H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 1 S.C.R. A law. The same having attained finality against the respondents, is liable to be respectfully adhered to. Once a challenge raised at the hands of the respondents to the judgments relied upon by the petitioner remained futile before this Court, the same should have been accepted B without any further protestation. The contention for the respondents that the criterion adopted by the Jal Nigam was enforceable against the petitioner is rejected. [Paras 5, 6, 8] [252-F; 254-G-H; 255-A] C 2. Whether the setting aside of the criterion adopted by the Screening Committee would ipso facto result in the negation of the impugned order dated 1.9.2005 (by which the petitioner was prematurely retired from servic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.