LexSWAMI SARAN SAKSENA versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'( 'f > SW AMI SARAN SAKSENA v. STATE OF U.P. October 11, 1979 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J 923 Compulsory Retirement-Temporary judicial officer allowed to crosJ second Efficiency Bar-Within a few months compulsorily retired-Order- Validity of. . A B The services of the appellant who was appointed in November 1954 were terminated in December 1962, but the termination order was withdrawn on C January 16, 1963 and he rejoined service and resumed his duties. Again his services were terminated by an order doted May 18, 1966. This order having been quashed by the High Court in August 8, 1969, the appellant was rein• stated with the benefit of continuity of service. In June 1973 he was allowed to crOBs the second Efficiency Bar, but on August 2, 1974 the State Government made an order compulsorily retiring him from service. D In the appellant's writ petition, quashing the order of compulsory retire· ment, a single Judge of the High Court declared that the appellant continued to remain in service. In allowing the appeal of the State, the Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appellant's contention that the. order of com- pulsory retirement was arbitrary because nothing to justify the order had taken place after he was allowed to cross the second Efficiency Bar in June 1973. I: Allowing the appeal this Court, HELD : I. The compulsory retirement of the appellant was not called for on the facts of this case. The appellant will be deemed to have ' continued in service on the date of the impugned order [925 H-926A] 2. The appellant was found worthy of being permitted to cross the second Efficiency Bar ouly a few months before. Although this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the decision of the relevant authority in a case of this kind particularly when the order was made on the recommendation of the High Court, i~ i.~ difficult to reconcile the apparent contradiction that for the purpose of crossing the second Efficiency Bar the appellant was considered to have worked with distinct ability and with integrity beyond question, yet with in a few months thereafter he was found so unfit as to deserve compulsory retirement. There is no evidence to show that suddenly there was such deterioration in the quality of the appellant's work or integrity that he dese=d to be compulsorily retired. [925 F-H] . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1296 of 1978. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 7-5-1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 9176. F G H 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.t. A S. S. Saksena (In person) B c , G. N. Dikshit and M. V. Goswami for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J: This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant against the order of the Allahabad High Conrt dismis- sing his writ petition challenging an order of compulsory retirement. The appellant was appointed by the Govermnent of Uttar Pradesh in November, 1954 as a temporary judicial officer. The State Government terminated his services in December, 1962 but, on representation made by him, the termination order was withdrawn on January 16, 1963. The appellant re-joined service and resumed his duties. However, by an order dated May 18, 1966, his services were terminated again. On a writ petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court, the termination order was quashed by the High Court on August 8, 1969. The appellant was reinstated with tbe benefit of continuity of service. His troubles did not end there. Although he had served for about fifteen years, several representa- tions made by him to the State Government for his confirmation met ·with no response, and he continued to remain a temporary Govern- ment servant. Meanwhile, in June, 1973 he was allowed to cross the second Efficiency Bar. But on August 2, 1974 the State Government made an order compulsorily retiring the appellant from service. The order purports to have been made in exercise of the powers mentioned in Note I to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which provide for compulsory retirement of a temporary Government servant on attaining the age of 50 years. The appel- lant had reached the age of 54 years. It was recited in the order if ·that the Governor on being satisfied that it was not in the public interest to retain the appellant, who was described as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.