SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11383

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN, J
Deepak Bajpayee – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 7000/2020



Advocates:
Akhil Singh,Advocate General

Compulsory retirement must consider the entire service record and recent promotions; failure to do so renders the retirement order invalid.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 21.01.2020, declared as deadwood, arguing that his entire service record was not considered and he had been promoted within the last five years (Paras 2, 10).

(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that the entire service record must be evaluated, and promotion within five years should ordinarily prevent compulsory retirement (Paras 10, 11).

(C) Findings of Court - The scrutiny committee failed to consider the ACR grading and promotion, leading to an improper declaration of the petitioner as deadwood (Paras 11, 14).

(D) Issues - Whether the petitioner’s promotion and service record were adequately considered in the decision to retire him (Paras 10, 11). (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court ruled that the failure to consider the entire service record and promotion invalidated the retirement order, emphasizing adherence to established guidelines (Paras 11, 14). (F) Result - The order of compulsory retirement is quashed, and the petitioner is reinstated with back wages.

ORDER

Reserved on : 20 /08/2024 Pronounced on : 24 /08/2024

The present petition has been filed putting to challenge the order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-5) whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from services upon declaring him deadwood.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as peon in the year 1999 and he has been retired upon being declared as deadwood by order (Annexure P-5) which is stated to be bad in law. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was promoted during the period of immediately preceding 5 years from the date of compulsory retirement and the promotion order is placed on record as (Annexure P-3) dated 27.12.2016 whereby he has been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III. It is thus contended that since the petitioner was promoted during the preceding 5 years, the order of compulsory retirement is bad in law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the entire service record of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents and it is settled in law that for declaring an employee as deadwood his entire service record has to be taken in consideration though the service record of last some years may be more relevant. By referring to charts (Annexures- R-13,14 and 15) placed on record by respondents along with their reply, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said chart refers only to certain warnings on account of alleged unauthorized absence. However, the said unauthorized absence were thereafter regularized and this could not be said to be a ground to compulsorily retire the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of M.P. State Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar, (2009) 15 SCC 221 and Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab SEB, (2009) 13 SCC 758.

5. Per Contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the State that petitioner was habitual of remaining absent from his duties and this habitual absentism was being continued from 1996 onwards till his compulsory retirement as evident from perusal of the chart and proposals vide (Annexure R-12 to R-15). So far as the said absences having been regularized and converted into leaves, it was contended by State counsel that such conversion was only for the purpose of maintaining service record and to avoid break in service of the petitioner. Merely converting the period into leaves does not condone the act of employee of being habitually absent.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This Court had directed the respondents to keep ready the proceedings of the scrutiny committee so that the consideration of the petitioner on the anvil of circular dated 22.08.2000 could be seen by the Court. The counsel for the State has placed for perusal of the Court the record of scrutiny committee. Upon perusal of the said record it appears that the meeting of the committee was held on 30.11.2018 in which three members were present. The committee has taken note of the fact that the petitioner was habitually absent and he was given leave without pay in 2010, character roll warning on 12.01.2017 for being unauthorized absent, leave without pay vide order dated 02.02.2018 and leave without pay vide order dated 20.02.2018. Apart from the above, the Committee has considered the same chart which is to be found in Annexures R-12 to 15 in which various warnings given to the petitioner are narrated. The manner of consideration for declaring the employee as deadwood is laid down in the circular dated 22.08.2000 placed on record as (Annexure P-6). As per said circular the methodology for consideration of service record has been laid down. Clause-4 of the said circular was amended on 20.03.2003 and the amendment order is as under:-

8. As per the aforesaid circular the revised guidelines and parameters provide that the entire service record of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top