U. P. JAL NIGAM AND ANR. versus SYED KHADIM WARIS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 13-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SYED KHADIM WARIS 
NOVEMBER 13, 1995 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Compulsory retirement-Order based on adverse entry against 
employee-Employee's representation against adverse ent1y placed before the C 
screening Committee-Supportive record not produced before High 
Court-Order quashed by High Court-On appeal it was found that order was 
also based on another uncommunicated adverse entry-Setting aside of im-
pugned order of High Court-Libe1ty to Department to pass fresh order on 
the basis of entire service record after communicating the ent1y to employee 
and considering his representation against the same. 
D 
An order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent 
was quashed by the High Court on the ground that it was based on an 
adverse entry for the year 1983-84 which was communicated to the respon-
dent but against which representation was pending. In its affidavit before E 
the High Court the appellant-Nigam specifically stated that the repre-
sentation of the respondent was placed before the Screening Committee. 
However, supporting records of the same were not produced before the 
High Court. Consequently the pleadings alone engaged attention of the 
High Court which set aside the order of compulsory retirement. The 
appellant-Nigam preferred appeal before this Court which apprised itself F 
of the total service record of the respondent and found that the order of 
compulsory retirement was also based on another entry for the year 
1984-85 which was adverse to the respondent but was not communicated 
to him. 
Allowing the employer's appeal, this Court 
G 
HELD : 1. Taking an overall view of the matter and in order to do 
complete justice between the parties, it is appropriate that the impugned 
order of the High Court, deficient as it is, be upset and the matter be put 
back to the stage prior to compulsory retirement. Consequently, the H 
169 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
respondent would deemingly be in the service of the Nigam. However, the 
deemed continuance of the respondent in service would not be a bar to the 
taking of the step of compulsory retirement as if at the age of 50 years 
subject to the final back up of the record after the adverse entry for the 
year 1984-85 stands communicated to him, against which he would have 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the opportunity to make time bound representation. Any fresh order 
passed would govern the fate of the case relating back to the date of the 
original order. It is further clarified that the respondent can in no way be 
taken back in service because of his attaining in the meantime the age of 
58 years. He need not for the present be paid anything more than his 
pensionary benefits till variation is warranted. [171-F-H; 172-C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10452 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.95 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 604 of 1986. 
Gopal Subramanian, R.B. Misra and M.K. Ray for the Appellants. 
Anis Suharwardy for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivere_d : 
The respondent-Executive Engineer, on attaining the age of fifty was 
compulsorily retired by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nagam in exercise of powers 
under Rule 56-C of the Financial Hand Book Part II, Volumes 2 to 4. The 
respondent successfully challenged that order before the Lucknow Bench 
of the Allahabad High Court by means of a writ petition. The prime 
consideration which weighed with the High Court deciding in his favour 
was that an adverse entry of the year 1983-84, though communicated to the 
respondent on 9-4-1985, had been put to use to arrive at the result, when 
representation of the respondent against the adverse entry was pending 
before the Nigam. As viewed by the High Court, that particular entry could 
G not be put to use unless the representation was decided. The High Court 
has emphasised this aspect in its judgment at more than one pl.ac.e. The 
High Court has also blamed the Nigam for not producing before it the text 
of the entry pertaining to the year 1983-84 so as to apprise itself of the 
nature and seriousness thereof. 
H 
The Nigam asserts to t~e contrary. It says that not only was the entry 
.. 
U.P.JALNIGAMv. S.K. WARIS 
171 
adverted to in the counter affidavit filed by it before the High Court, but A 
it was specifically averred therein that the representation of the respondent 
received had by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.