[2026:RJ-JP:3557]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17824/2015

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dausa.

----Petitioners Versus Ram Kishan Meena son of Shri Ram Sahai Meena, aged about 62 years, resident of Viilage & Post Jasota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Compulsorily retired as Teacher Gr.III, Government Upper Primary School, Kalota, District Dausa (Rajasthan).

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gautam Bhadadra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

27/01/2026

1. Petitioner- State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Elementary Education Department has filed this writ petition challenging the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (Raj.), whereby order of compulsory retirement dated 04.04.2001 issued by the competent authority under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996') has been quashed by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was appointed as Teacher Grade-III in petitioner- Department vide order dated 15.12.1975. In exercise of powers under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, Screening Committee was constituted by the petitioner for examining the record of such employees, who turned to be ineffective and inefficient and were no more useful in the Department. Such Committee recommended name of the petitioner and accordingly order dated 04.04.2001 was issued at premature stage to retire respondent No.1 compulsorily.

3. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15830/2010. The aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn and this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2011, granted liberty to respondent No.1 to file an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. It was further observed that the Tribunal shall consider the pendency of the writ petition against the order of compulsory retirement while taking a decision over application for condonation of delay.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without properly examining the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, same was allowed by learned Tribunal and appeal filed by respondent No.1 has been accepted vide order dated 14.03.2014. Learned counsel submits that no proper reasons have been assigned by learned Tribunal for condoning the delay. He also submits that it is not always necessary that before issuance of order of compulsory retirement, the Government is required to show details of penalties or adverse entries in ACR of the incumbent, even the general behaviour of the employee is a relevant factor so as to decide as to whether employee was deadwood for the Department to be weeded out while exercising powers under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. In the instant case, the recommending authority has made it clear that respondent No.1 was a habitual absentee due to which on number of occasions inconvenience was caused to the petitioner- Government in properly imparting education to the students. However, merely by giving finding that there was no penalties in the record of the respondent No.1, order of compulsory retirement have been quashed by the Tribunal. While doing so, it has also not been appreciated by the Tribunal that order of compulsory retirement cannot be considered to be a penalty as the incumbent is permitted to have all the retiral dues including pension and gratuity. He further submits that compulsory retirement is a matter of subjective satisfaction and on the basis of record of the employee, such satisfaction can be drawn by the Government. The Appellate Tribunal in utter ig