1. Compulsory retirement of an employee — Challenge based on non-payment of notice pay and alleged bias in the screening committee. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 602
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Jagannatha Shetty : Yogeshwar Dayal
State Of U.P.
Versus
Raj Kishore Bhargava
Case No. : 4389 of 1991
Date of Decision : 10/31/91
Compulsory retirement is not vitiated by the non-simultaneous payment of notice pay if a cheque was drawn and sent, nor by the participation of a reporting officer in the Screening Committee, particularly when the employee's service record is poor.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Payment of salary in lieu of notice - Order of compulsory retirement is not vitiated merely because three months' salary in lieu of notice was not paid simultaneously with the order, provided the cheque was drawn and sent to the employee. (Para 3)
(B) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Screening Committee - Participation of a reporting officer who had given an adverse entry - Participation of the concerned Chief Engineer in the Committee is inevitable and does not vitiate the order of compulsory retirement, especially where the employee has a consistently poor record of service. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An employee was compulsorily retired from service. The lower court set aside the retirement on two grounds: first, that three months' salary in lieu of notice was not paid simultaneously with the order, and second, that the participation of a member of the Screening Committee who had previously given an adverse entry against the employee vitiated the order.
Findings of Court:
The lower court was too technical regarding the payment of notice pay, as a cheque had been drawn and sent. Regarding the committee's composition, the participation of the concerned Chief Engineer was inevitable. Furthermore, the employee's service record was poor, with multiple adverse entries over several decades.
Issues: Whether the failure to pay notice pay simultaneously with the retirement order and the participation of a reporting officer in the Screening Committee are sufficient grounds to set aside an order of compulsory retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the drawing and sending of a cheque for notice pay satisfies the requirement, and the participation of a reporting officer in the Screening Committee is permissible and inevitable. A poor service record justifies the order of compulsory retirement.
Result: Appeal allowed, set aside the order of the lower court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-payment of salary in lieu of notice and participation of an officer who gave adverse entries in the screening committee vitiate the retirement order. (Para 2 )
3. Notice pay sent via cheque is valid; participation of the concerned Chief Engineer in the screening committee is inevitable and not biased. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Compulsory retirement is valid if supported by a poor service record, regardless of technicalities regarding notice pay or inevitable participation of reporting officers. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of the High Court setting aside the compulsory retirement is set aside. (Para 5 )
6. Does the failure to pay salary in lieu of notice simultaneously with the compulsory retirement order necessarily vitiate the retirement?
No. If the salary in lieu of notice was drawn and sent via cheque, the order is not vitiated merely because the cheque was returned or not paid simultaneously. (Para 3 )
7. Does the participation of an officer who provided an adverse entry in the screening committee for compulsory retirement vitiate the process?
No. The participation of a concerned Chief Engineer in the committee is considered inevitable and does not necessarily vitiate the order of compulsory retirement. (Para 4 )
8. Can a compulsory retirement order be set aside if the employee has a consistently poor service record?
No. Where the record reveals multiple adverse entries over several years, the court is unlikely to set aside the order of compulsory retirement. (Para 4 )
Judgment
K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE respondent was compulsorily retired from service on February 3, 1990. The High court has set aside that compulsory retirement on two grounds, namely: (1) that three months salary in lieu of notice has not been paid simultaneously along with the order of compulsory retire- ment, and (2) in the Screening Committee which considered the case of the respondent the participation of Shri R.P. Goyal who had given an adverse entry in one year against the respondent has vitiated the order of compulsory retirement.
(3) THE High court seems to be too technical. Three months salary in lieu of notice was sent by cheque to the respondent. The cheque was sent on 5/04/1990. "There is no reason to disbelieve this fact. In the affidavit on behalf of the government it has been stated that the cheque was sent to the respondent but it was returned. It is not in dispute that the cheque was drawn, and there is no reason why it should be dis- believed merely on the ground that some other letter has not been produced.
(4) THE second reason given by the High court is equally untenable. Shri Goyal is the concerned Chief Engineer. He is also required to take a decision on the compulsory retirement of the respondent. His participation in the Committee was inevitable and could not be found fault with. Secondly, the record reveals that the respondent got adverse entries right from 1961-62 to 1973-74, 1977-78, 1979-80, 1980-81 and even sub- sequently. In view of the poor record of service, we think that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retire- ment.
(5) IN the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High court. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
