Point of Law: 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 whether his continuance in the department is for the public good or not.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Amar Nath Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the orders dated 31.07.2017 and 10.11.2017 passed by respondent no.2 by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in P.A.C. on 15.08.1981 and was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1992. The date of birth of the petitioner is 25.06.1962 and the date of retirement is 30.06.2022.

4. It appears that a decision was taken by the Government to assess the suitability of about 203 Constables belonging to Class-III employees and 36 employees of Class-IV working in the P.A.C. Department for continuing in service.

5. Pursuant to the said decision, a Committee was constituted to assess the suitability of employees. Accordingly, the committee constituted for such purpose, assessed the suitability of employees. The Committee on the assessment of service record of the petitioner found that in the last 10 years the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory, and accordingly, his services are no longer required in the public interest. Consequently, the committee recommended the compulsory retirement of the petitioner by order dated 31.07.2017.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the service record of the petitioner has not been properly assessed by the committee, yet he has been recommended for compulsory retirement.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-state stating that the petitioner was awarded five minor punishments in the years 1984, 1989, 1998, 2001, and 2015. It was further stated that the petitioner was awarded three censure entries in the years 2002, 2007, and 2010 and adverse annual remarks in the years 2002, 2010, 2013, and 2015. Thus, the service of the petitioner is not satisfactory. The respondents also enclosed a chart based on the service book of the petitioner demonstrating the punishment awarded to the petitioner. The chart enclosed as Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit is being extracted herein-below:-

^^mnzj.k fpj= iaftd eq[; vkj{kh ih,uŒvks uaŒ810630129 johUnz feJk

8. The further averment in the counter affidavit is that the screening committee after scrutinizing the service record of the petitioner found that five minor punishments, three censure entries, and four annual remarks had been awarded to the petitioner, accordingly, it recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner as the continuance of the petitioner in service would not be in the public interest.

9. To meet the averments made in the counter affidavit, a second supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that petitioner on completing 8 years of satisfactory service as Head Constable was given the benefit of selection grade w.e.f 09.07.2000, and on completing 14 years of service, he was granted super selection grade on 09.07.2006. It is further stated that vide Hindi Order Book (HOB) No.408 dated 15.07.2014, the petitioner was granted Grade Pay of Rs.