( 1 ) THE Petitioner was appointed as an Overseer on 21st January, 1957 with the erstwhile District Board, Delhi.

( 2 ) WITH the promulgation of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and more particularly Section 511 thereof, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the MCD) with effect from 7th April, 1958.

( 3 ) ON or about 15th June, 1970, the Petitioner was promoted as an assistant Engineer (Civil) on current duty charge. He was later reverted but again promoted on 8th December, 1977 with effect from 13th June, 1974.

( 4 ) ON 12th September, 1988, a Review Committee of the MCD held a meeting to examine the cases of officers for the purposes of implementing fr 56 (j) relating to compulsory retirement.

( 5 ) THE case of the Petitioner came up for consideration before the review Committee. His service record revealed that he was an average officer who had departmental cases against him. He had been placed under suspension on three occasions and had also been punished in respect of some of the departmental proceedings. The Engineer-in-Chief was of the view that the Petitioner was neither competent nor fit to continue on the post of an Assistant Engineer (Civil) since he was unable to work effectively and efficiently.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the material before it, the Review Committee, after a careful consideration of the record, recommended the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner under the provisions of FR 56 (j ).

( 7 ) ACTING upon the recommendation of the Review Committee, the commissioner, MCD issued an order dated 30th September, 1988 compulsorily retiring the Petitioner with immediate effect.

( 8 ) THEREAFTER, in a letter dated 11th October, 1988 (it is not clear to whom it was addressed) the Commissioner REFERRED TO the provisions of fr 56 (j) and the fact that a Review Committee had met for considering the performance of some officers who had attained the age of 50/55 years. It was mentioned that the cases of six officers were considered. In respect of one of them, the Commissioner was the appointing authority and he had ordered the compulsory retirement of that officer under FR 56 (j) in public interest. In respect of the other five officers, the appointing authority was the MCD, but since the Commissioner was the "appropriate authority" in respect of these officers, they were also retired in public interest under FR 56 (j ). One of the officers so retired was the Petitioner. The findings of the Review Committee along with relevant records were to be placed before the MCD for approval of the action taken under FR 56 (j ).

( 9 ) THE expression "appropriate Authority" is defined in Note 1 below FR 56 as follows: -

"appropriate Authority means the authority which has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire. "

( 10 ) ON 28th November, 1988, the MCD passed Resolution No. 865 after referring to the letter dated 11th October, 1988. By this Resolution, the MCD approved the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. The resolution reads as follows:-

"resolved that as proposed by the Commissioner in his letter NO. F33/ced/5468/candc dated 11-10-1988, approval to the following be accorded:

(I) to the pre-mature retirement of 5 municipal employees as mentioned in para 3. of the above referred letter under F. R, 56 (j) with effect from the issue of the orders in public interest; and

(II) to the payment of a sum equivalent to the amount of their pay plus allowances for a period of 3 months calculated at the rate at which they were drawing/admissible to them immediately before their retirement.

THE motion was carried. (The members of the BJP present in the meeting staged a walk out ). At 4. 55 p. m. the Mayor adjourned the meeting. Municipal Secretary Chairman"

( 11 ) FEELING aggrieved by his compulsory retirement by the commissioner and its approval by the Corporation, the