1. By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article, 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24.06.2009 with further direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

2. Facts, as canvassed by the petitioner are that he was appointed as clerk w.e.f. 07.05.1972, thereafter, he was promoted as Cashier in the year 1989. The petitioner was further promoted as Accountant in the year 1995. Thereafter in May, 2003, he was promoted as Branch Manager. In July, 2006, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager. The promotion orders are filed cumulatively as Annexure P/2. The promotion order dated 08.07.2006 was cancelled, against which the petitioner filed WP No.107/2008. This Court set aside the cancellation of promotion order by order dated 09.05.2008 (Annexure P/4). It is admitted between the parties that against said order of the writ Court, writ appeal is pending before Division Bench.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order Annexure P/1. By this order the petitioner is compulsorily retired. Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of satisfactory service of the petitioner, in which no adverse CR is communicated to him and he was given various promotions, order of compulsory retirement is bad in law and is an arbitrary exercise of power. He submits that careful scrutiny of the impugned order would show that it is punitive in nature and not based on entire service record of the petitioner.

4. The respondents have not chosen to file any reply in this matter. On 03.12.2012 learned counsel for the respondents stated that he does not want to file any reply in the matter. However, record/photocopy in the shape of file is produced for the perusal of this Court. Shri Vishal Mishra, learned counsel for the employer heavily relied on 2007 RN 290 = 2007 (2) MPLJ 152 (Triloki Nath Pandey v. M.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and others). In the said case the petition was not entertained and petitioner was relegated to avail alternative remedy. On the strength of this order, it is contended that this petition be not entertained.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. I deem it proper to first deal with the objection of other side about availability of alternative remedy. In Triloki Nath Pandey (supra) petition was filed at the end of year 2005 which was decided in 2006. This petition is pending before this Court for about four years. The respondents have not chosen to file reply in this matter. This is settled in law that despite availability of alternative remedy, the petition can be entertained. The question of entertaining a writ petition, despite availability of alternative remedy, is matter of policy/discretion and is not of a compulsion. In given facts and situation, Court may relegate the litigant to avail alternative remedy, whereas in different factual scenario may also entertained it.

7. In the present case, facts are totally different. Merely because there is an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail that remedy after four years. The apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registar of Trace Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] opined that despite availability of alternative remedy, petition can be entertained. One such ingredient for entertaining the petition is violation of principle of natural justice. Hence, the judgment in Triloki Nath (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner.

8. Coming to the merits of the case, the contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the year1972 and thereafter, he was given various promotions. Only promotion dated 8.7.2006 is presently subject matter of writ appeal. Other promotions, given prior in time, have attained finality. In view of the record and various promotions, it is contended that by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be termed as ‘dead wood’.

9. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is compul