Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Brij Mohan Bairwa S/o Shri Arjun Lal – Appellant
Versus
Rasthan State Road Transport Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to compulsory retirement order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding service record and retirement (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. review of penalties affecting retirement decision (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. principles regarding compulsory retirement (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. distinction from similar cases based on penalties (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court dismissal of the writ petition (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.06.2005 passed by Chairman and Managing Director of RSRTC, Jaipur whereby, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18D(1) of Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 11.06.2005.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor on 13.06.1977 and his services were regularized w.e.f 03.07.1978. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although, there were certain minor punishments in the service record of the petitioner in his earlier years of service however, vide order dated 20.03.2004,
Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and serves public interest by weeding out ineffective employees, validated by a consistent record of penalties.
Principles governing the grant of certain benefits i.e. pay scales and other benefits are different than the assessment of service record of the petitioner to assess the suitability of the petitioner....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such order....
The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant under FR 56(j) must be made in public interest, and judicial scrutiny is limited to cases of mala fide exercise of power or lack of evidence. ....
Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not require a hearing under Article 311; it is based on the government's subjective satisfaction regarding public interest.
The legal framework for compulsory retirement of a judicial officer in public interest involves subjective satisfaction of the government, limited judicial review, and the consideration of the office....
Point of Law : Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an emp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
