ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned order of compulsory retirement notice issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-C. Consequently, a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought to issue direction to respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner to the post of In-charge Senior Manager(Civil) and extend all consequential benefits.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents.

Perused the records.

3. Petitioner had initially applied for the position of Senior Manager(Civil) Grade-VI as per the employment notification dated 20.2.1996. Petitioner was appointed in the lower post of Manager (Civil) Grade-V. Records reveal that petitioner’s services were eventually utilized by the company in various capacities.

4. I have examined the case presented by the petitioner who applied for the position of Senior Manager(Civil) Grade-VI. The petitioner’s subsequent suspension and the eventual compulsory retirement by the respondent-company form the crux of this legal dispute. This Court has to examine as to whether respondent-company was justified in passing the order of compulsory retirement by having recourse to Rule 7.8.2.2 of the Mysore Paper Mills’ Officers’ Service, Control, Conduct and Appeal Rules-2008(for short “OSCCAR-2008”).

5. Rule 7.8.2 empowers the Board of the respondent-company to order retirement of an officer of any grade or post provided he has attained the age of 50 years or he has completed 25 years of qualifying service if such retirement, in the opinion of the Board, is necessarily in the interest of the Company. However, the said Rule clearly contemplates a procedure to be followed before an Officer is made to compulsorily retire. Rules 7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.2 are two relevant Rules which would have direct bearing on the case on hand. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract relevant Rules, which read as under: “7.8.2.1. For the purpose of conducting screening of such officer proposed to be compulsorily retired, the following Screening Committee(s) is constituted for various grades of officers:

Screening Committee(s)

For Grades I to VI GM (HRD&A) & GM (P) - Chairman {for non-technical and technical cadres respectively}

DGM (Process) - Member AGM (Finance) - Member AGM - Member {Concerned technical wing as chosen by concerned GM}

For Grade VII and above CMD/MD - Chairman DIR (FOR) - Member DIR (FIN) - Member GM(HRD&A)/GM(M)/GM(P) - Member Company Secretary - Member The Screening Committee shall review for every two years, the service records of the officers who have completed 25 years or attained 50 years of age. If, as a result of such bi-annual review, in the opinion of the Committee(s), the service of an officer is unsatisfactory or his contribution to the working of the mill due to ill health or otherwise is inadequate, the Committee may recommend that the officer may be compulsorily retired.

7.8.2.2. On receipt of such recommendation from the Committee, the Board of Directors, after satisfying that it is necessary in the Company's interest to retire such an officer, may pass orders compulsorily retiring the officer after giving three months notice or three months pay in lieu thereof.”

In the light of the aforesaid Rules, it is the screening committee which is required to review for every two years the service record of the officers who have completed 25 years or attained 50 years of age, which has to recommend the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of respondent-company on satisfaction that it is a fit case in the Company’s interest to retire such an Officer, may pass orders compulsorily retiring the Officer after giving three months’ notice or three months’ pay in lieu of thereof.

6. The impugned compulsorily retirement has to be examined in the background of preceding incidents which ultimately led to retiring the petitioner compulsorily. As evidenced from Annexure-R, petitioner made attempts to seek employment elsewhere by applying for th