The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order of compulsory retirement. Relying on consistent precedents where similar officers were retired after failing promotion criteria, the court held there was no merit in the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.781 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 08, 2015
Sahdev Singh
.....Appellant
versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present: Mr.Kanwar Deep Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Advocate, for the respondents-HUDA.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The learned Single Judge has in the judgment under appeal dated 01.05.2015 followed an earlier decision dated 19.03.2015 rendered in CWP No.5491 of 2013 (Shri Momen Ram versus State of Haryana and others) and consequently dismissed the appellant's writ petition, challenging the order of compulsory retirement.
On a perusal of the judgment in Momen Ram's case (supra), we find that the controversy in the instant case is similar to that case. We are informed that LPA No.656 of 2015 filed against the judgment dated 19.03.2015 in Momen Ram's case (supra) has been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on 26.05.2015. Earlier also, in LPA No.972 of 2011 (Kulwant Singh versus State of Haryana and another) which was dismissed on 30.05.2011, similar issue was raised. There, the appellant was
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.07.29 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
LPA No.781 of 2015 (O&M) [2]
promoted from the post of Peon to Clerk and he too could not pass the type test and continued to work as a Clerk for a considerable long period. His compulsory retirement was upheld by the learned Single Judge.
In view of the consistent view taken by different Benches, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE
July 08, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.07.29 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the appeal relying on the consistent view of coordinate benches upholding compulsory retirement.
Whether the appellant, promoted to a higher post where he failed the type test, was correctly subjected to compulsory retirement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Momen Ram versus State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶16
CWP No.5491 of 2013 (Shri Momen Ram versus State of Haryana and others)
LPA No.656 of 2015Referred¶17
Kulwant Singh versus State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶17
LPA No.972 of 2011 (Kulwant Singh versus State of Haryana and another)
Sahdev Singh
State of Haryana and others
SURYA KANT
P.B.BAJANTHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
