IMPORTANT POINT
The assessment of an employee's entire service record is crucial for deciding on compulsory retirement, and the order must be based on proper grounds and subjective satisfaction of the authority.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

“1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Managing Director Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation Raipur with all consequential benefits.

2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Supervisor in India Security Press, Ministry of Finance, Government of India in the year 1988. The petitioner was voluntarily retired in the year 2007 and thereafter he was sent on deputation in the Chhattisgarh text Book Corporation, where he had worked as Manager Printing till 14.01.2009. The advertisement was issued by Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation for appointment on the post of Printing Manager, the petitioner was holding an experience and was also eligible for the post of printing manager. The petitioner has also applied for the said post and was selected as a Printing Manager and he was appointed against the vacant sanctioned post of Printing Manager vide order dated 19.08.2008 (ANNEXURE P/2). The petitioner joined the post on 27.01.2009 and till then he was working but vide impugned order dated 15.12.2017, he was compulsory retired from service without issuing any notice, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed without assigning any reason and without any application of mind. The impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed without there being any material and for extraneous reasons. The authorities have failed to appreciate that though the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, but it should not be passed for ulterior motive. The State Government has issued the guidelines vide circular dated 25.04.2017 and in the said circular certain guidelines have been made for passing an order of compulsory retirement. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the category of said circular. The guidelines issued on 25.04.2017 would not be applied in case of an employee who is working in the society and who is not the government servant, because Rule 42(b) of Pension Rules 1976 and Rule 56 of Fundamental Rule are not applicable to the employees of the text Book Corporation. There were absolutely no adverse entry in the petitioner's confidential report. The scrutiny committee did not recommend the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner had only less than 8 years to retire from service. The petitioner has completed 8 years of his service. The confidential report from 2009 to 2015 are up to the mark and no adverse remarks have been made. The order of compulsory retirement has been passed contrary to Rule 56 of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules and Rule 42 of Chhattisgarh Pension Rules 1976. Even those rules are not applicable to the petitioner. The screening committee constituted by the State Government has not considered the overall records of the petitioner and no reason has been assigned for passing of an order of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs Union of India and another, reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 165 and State of Punjab vs Bandeep Singh and others, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 and this Court’s order dated 03.05.2019 passed in WPS No.5384/2017 in case of M. M. Chaturvedi vs State of Chhattisgarh and others and order dated 17.09.2020 passed in WPS No.5914/2017 in case of G. C. Nahata vs State of Chha