Premature retirement must adhere to procedural guidelines, ensuring proper review of employee performance and status without overlooking established age thresholds and adverse record considerations.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging Office Order dt.09.10.2020 so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-2. Petitioner in terms of the said order was prematurely retired w.e.f 09.10.2020.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper vide Office Order dt.30.11.1995 so issued by the then Orissa State Electricity Board under Annexure-1 series. Petitioner while so continuing, was appointed as a Jr. Typist vide order of appointment issued on 30.03.1999 by the authorities of Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited also under Annexure-1 series.

2.1. Not only that, Petitioner vide Office order dt.06.11.2013 and 07.11.2015 under Annexure-1 series, was also promoted to the post of Sr. Typist and Head Typist. However, while continuing as Head Typist/ Computer Asst. Gr.-I (Highly Skilled-‘A’ category), Petitioner was made to retire prematurely w.e.f 09.10.2020 vide Office Order dt.09.10.2020 of Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-2, in terms of the provisions contained under clause-3(ii) of OSEB Employees Age of Retirement Regulation, 1979 (in short, “Regulation”) adopted by Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (in short, “the Corporation”).

2.2. It is contended that while continuing in the establishment of the Corporation, not only Petitioner was promoted to different posts vide orders issued under Annexure-1 series, but also at no point of time, any adverse CCR was ever communicated to the Petitioner. However, Government in the G.A and P.G Department vide its Resolution dt.24.04.2019 under Annexure-3 when prescribed certain guidelines for Pre-mature Retirement of Government Servants to weed out Officers and employees of doubtful integrity or inefficiency from public service, to ensure efficiency in administration, such guideline issued by the G.A and P.G Department was accepted by the Corporation vide Office Order dt.11.12.2019 of Opp. Party No.2.

2.3. After adopting such guidelines issued by the Government in the G.A & P.G Department and as provided therein, Review Committee so constituted took up the issue with regard to continuance of the Petitioner in the establishment of the Corporation. The Committee vide its report under Annexure-4, however recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner for the sake of public interest in terms of para-6(a)(b) and 10(a) of the guideline issued by the G.A & P.G Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-3 series. Para-6(a)(b) and Para-10(a) of the guideline reads as follows:

6. The criteria to be followed by the Committee in making their recommendations would be as follows:

(a) Government employees whose integrity is doubtful, will be retired.

(b) Government employees who are found to be ineffective will also be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such employees should be the fitness competence of the employees to continue in the post which he/she is holding.

xxx xxx xxx

10. It will not be in public interest to retain an employee in service if-

(a) he is clearly lacking in integrity, or

2.4. It is contended that basing on such recommendation made by the Committee, Petitioner was given pre-mature retirement vide the impugned order dt.09.10.2020 under Annexure-2. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that as provided in the Resolution issued by the Government in the G.A and P.G Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-3 series and as provided under Para-4 of the same, the case of Group-A and Group-B Officers on their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age, and on their attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be, on the 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 31st December of a year shall be reviewed by the R