SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mani Ram
Vs.
State of Haryana
C.A.No.5446 of 2005
(G.P.Mathur and P.K.Balasubramanyan JJ.)
01.09.2005
G.P. Mathur, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 5.9.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by which the writ
petition preferred by the appellant for quashing the order dated 6.11.1995
compulsorily retiring the appellant from service, was dismissed.
3. The appellant, who was a Sub Inspector of Police, was served a notice dated
8.6.1989 by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, by which he
was informed that he had attained the age of 55 years on 9.6.1989 and as he was
not considered fit to be retained in service beyond the said age, he was being
given notice of three months as required under the provisions of Punjab Police
Rules 18(1)(c) read with note below therein and Rule 5.32 of C.S.R. Vol. II and
accordingly he will be deemed to have retired from service after the expiry of
period of notice i.e. on 7.9.1989. The appellant challenged the aforesaid
notice of compulsory retirement by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 9623 of 1989,
which was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 5.5.1995 and the operative part
of the order reads as under:
"In the result, the writ petition is allowed only on the ground that the
competent authority did not apply its mind to the record of the petitioner but
acted under the dictates of his superior officer while issuing the impugned notice
and, therefore, the impugned notice is quashed. However, it is left open to the
competent authority to independently examine the record of the petitioner and
take a fresh decision as to whether the petitioner should have been retained in
service beyond 55 years of age. Such decision should be taken by the competent
authority within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order. The
competent authority shall take a decision without being influenced by any
observation made in this order. If the competent authority once again comes to
the conclusion that the petitioner did not deserve to continue beyond 55 years
of age, the petitioner shall not get any other relief. On the other hand, if it
is held that the petitioner had a right to continue in service beyond 55 years,
the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service till the age of
superannuation and he shall in that event get all monetary benefits. Parties
are left to bear their own costs."
The letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant against the aforesaid
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by a Division
Bench on 20.11.1997 and review petition was also dismissed on 20.3.1998.
Thereafter, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11428-11429 of 1998 were preferred
in this Court challenging the orders passed in letters patent appeal and in the
review petition and the same were dismissed on 5.11.1999.
4. In compliance of the orders passed on 5.5.1995 in Civil Writ Petition No.
9623 of 1989, the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, considered
the matter again and after detailed examination of the service record of the
appellant passed a fresh order on 6.11.1995 holding that the appellant did not
deserve to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years and that he was
rightly retired at the said age. The appellant then challenged the order dated
6.11.1995 by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 6353 of 2000 before the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.9.2002
by a Division Bench of the High Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of
compulsory retirement having been passed on 6.11.1995, it should take effect
from the said date and not with retrospective effect from 7.9.1989. It is urged
that even though the order was passed by the Commandant on a much later date
i.e. on 6.11.1995, but the appellant is being treated to have retired on
7.9.1989. According to learned counsel, the appellant would get some pensionary
benefits in case the order of compulsory retirement is treated to have been
passed on 6.11.1995 and not on 7.9.1989. He has made a statement that the
appellant would not claim any salary for the past period. Taking note of this
contention, while issuing notice on the special leave petition, this Court had
passed the following order on 3.2.2003:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned
departmental order Annexure-P/3 (Pg. 34 of the paper book) should not have been
made operative from a back date and if made prospective, the advantage to the
petitioner would be in the calculation of pensionary benefits. The learned
counsel further states that the petitioner shall not claim any back wages. In
view of that statement, issue notice to the respondents to show cause why the
impugned order dated 6.11.1995 be not suitably modified."
6. In our opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant in wholly misconceived and cannot at all be accepted. In the judgment
and order dated 5.5.1995 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 9623 of 1989, the
learned Single Judge had clearly directed that if the competent authority once
again comes to the conclusion that the petitioner did not deserve to continue
in service beyond 55 years of age, the petitioner shall not get any other
relief. As already mentioned, this order attained finality as the letters
patent appeal, review petition and also the special leave petition preferred
against the said order were dismissed. Therefore, in terms of the said order,
the appellant is not entitled to any other relief as the competent authority
(Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Haryana Armed Police) again held that the appellant
had been rightly retired at the age of 55 years.
7. There is another fallacy in the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant. The normal age of retirement at the relevant time was 58 years.
The appellant attained the age of 55 years on 9.6.1989 and was then served with
a notice of compulsory retirement. The subsequent order of the competent
authority has been passed on 6.11.1995 by which time the appellant was more
than 61 years of age. If the order of compulsory retirement is treated to have
been passed on the said date i.e. 6.11.1995, it would mean that the appellant
continued in service even beyond his normal age of retirement, which was 58
years. This would not only obliterate the order of compulsory retirement but
would also give him extension in service.
8. For the reasons discussed above, there is no merit in the appeal, which is
hereby dismissed with costs.