P.D. Kode, J.

1. By the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner working as a Constable in Maharashtra Police Service and compulsorily retired w.e.f. from 24.8.2000 under Rule 65 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 has thrown a challenge to common order dated 24.8.2000 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench dismissing Original Application Nos. 159/1996 and 513/1999 preferred by him challenging notice dated 28.5.1995 issued by respondent no.3 informing that he would be retired in public interest w.e.f. 22.8.1995 or after expiry of three months period from the receipt of the said notice and against order dated 24.5.1999 passed by respondent no.3 compulsorily retiring him. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Tribunal and directing respondents for reinstating and continuing him in service till superannuation.

2. The facts giving rise to the controversy arisen in present petition are as under:

The petitioner belonging to Nomadic Tribe was appointed on 10.6.1963 in Maharashtra Police Services. The date of birth of petitioner being 1.7.1943, he was due for superannuation on 1.7.2001 i.e. after completion of age of 58 years.

3. On 19.7.1976 petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable due to having completed 12 years of continuous service. However, thereafter petitioner was neither promoted nor given higher pay-scale in the next promotional post in spite of clean service record i.e. himself being not communicated any adverse remark, nor having received any punishment major or minor, nor being required to face any departmental inquiry. On14.2.1994 he presented an application/representation for promoting him as an Assistant Sub-Inspector i.e ASI since he had completed 12 years unblemished service on the post of Head Constable.

4. While his said application was under process and consideration, respondent no.3 issued to him notice dated 22.5.1995 informing that in public interest he is compulsorily retired w.e.f. 22.8.1995 under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, i.e. at the age of 51 years and 10 months, much prior to attaining superannuation. The petitioner made representations dated 5.6.1995, 3.7.1995 and 24.7.1995 to respondent no.3 against the said notice. However, respondent no.3 failed to consider and/or to decide the same.

5. Original Application No.616/1995 preferred by the petitioner before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the notice dated 22.5.1995 was disposed of by said Tribunal vide order dated 4.12.1995 directing respondents for considering the representations made by petitioner and continuing him in service till same were decided.

6. After receiving an order dated 28.2.1996 from respondent no.3 informing about rejection of the representations, petitioner again approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal with Original Application No.159/1996 challenging said order rejecting his representation dated 4.6.1995. During the pendency of the said application, order compulsorily retiring petitioner in public interest was stayed by Tribunal.

7. In view of the counsel for the petitioner having not attended the Tribunal, the said application was dismissed for default on 18.5.1999. Immediately on next day petitioner filed an application for restoration of said application. The notice of said Civil Application for restoration made returnable after two weeks was served on respondent no.3 on 21.5.1999.

8. It is case of petitioner that respondent no.3 by taking advantage of dismissal of Original Application No.159/1996 in default ,after receipt of notice of application for restoration, had immediately issued an order dated 24.5.1999 of compulsory retirement of the petitioner on 24.5.1999. On said date petitioner was of aged 55 years and 10 months and had received approximately gross salary of Rs.8,900/-