Dismissed

Nand Ram v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2024CW/6125/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging compulsory retirement. The single bench held that since both the screening and review committees supported the retirement, detailed independent reasons by the authority were not required, finding no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner.

Nand Ram Vs State and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:309]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6125/2013

¶4

Nand Ram s/o Shri Bhagwana Ram, aged about 61 years, r/o STR Nahar Ki Tail, New Mandi, Gharsana, District SriGanganagar, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan

¶8

The Board of Revenue Rajasthan through its Registrar, Ajmer

¶9

		----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr D.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s)	: Mr I.S. Pareek

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶11

Order (oral)

¶12

03/01/2024

¶13

Petitioner herein challenges an order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appeal Tribunal, Jaipur, in Appeal No.2826/2000. In this order, the Tribunal declined to intervene against the decision dated 09.08.2000, rendered by the District Collector, Sriganganagar, vide which petitioner was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996. Subsequently, an appeal filed against the order of the Collector was also dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari on 26.02.1979 at Patwar Mandal Lodha, Tehsil & District Banswara. He was Transferred to the office of Additional Collector, Area Development, North West Bakra,

[2024:RJ-JD:309]

[CW-6125/2013]

(2 of 5)

Hanumangarh Junction, the petitioner joined duty on 01.02.1981, remaining there until 24.02.1983. Subsequently, he was posted at various locations, receiving promotions and selection grades as per entitlements.

¶18

2.1. The Government of Rajasthan enacted the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996, effective from 01.09.1996. Rule 53 of these Rules addresses the compulsory retirement of a government servant. In exercise of powers under rule 53(i), a circular dated 21.04.2000 was issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel, providing guidelines for the process.

¶19

2.2. The Circular mandates that on April 1st of each year, appointing authorities prepare a list of individuals completing 15 years of qualifying service or reaching the age of 50. The screening committee, internal to the department, reviews the cases of government servants, preparing a comprehensive brief for consideration by the Review Committee. The circular emphasizes the consideration of the entire service record, including adverse remarks and positive appraisals, while deciding on compulsory retirement.

¶20

2.3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar, formed an internal screening committee as per the circular on 21.04.2000. This committee, in its meeting on 04.07.2000, recommended the compulsory retirement of the petitioner under rule 53(i) after reviewing the service record, noting two major penalties imposed on the petitioner in 1995 and 1998, and adverse entries in the ACR for the year 1990-91.

[2024:RJ-JD:309]

[CW-6125/2013]

(3 of 5)

2.4. The petitioner received a notice on 18.01.1994 regarding adverse entries in the ACR for the year 1990-91. Despite submitting replies in 1995 and 1995, no decision has been communicated regarding expunging the adverse remarks.

¶25

2.4. The order dated 15.06.1995 imposing a penalty was set aside by the Court in SBCWP No.4004/2003. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3260/2002 challenging the another punishment order dated 22.07.1998, which is pending adjudication.

¶26

2.7. On 09.08.2000, the District Collector, Sriganganagar, ordered the compulsory retirement of the petitioner after receiving the internal screening committee's report, exercising powers under rule 53(i) of the Rules of 1996.

¶27

In the aforesaid backdrop, after hearing arguments from both parties, I proceed to address the petitioner's contention.

¶28

Petitioner's counsel strongly argues that the impugned order, mandating the petitioner's compulsory retirement, lacks any application of mind. The learned counsel asserts that the appointing authority failed to demonstrate independent consideration or review of the petitioner's service record, a requirement under rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. 5. The counsel relies on a judgment from a Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1691/1993: LRs of late Shri Pukhraj Gehlot vs. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur and Others, decided on 01.03.2007, reported in 2007(2) WLC (Raj) 510. The judgment emphasizes that the appointing authority must form a definite opinion based on the entire service record, recording reasons for the premature retirement of the government servant.

[2024:RJ-JD:309]

[CW-6125/2013]

(4 of 5)

In response, the respondent argued that the Tribunal's judgment on 05.04.2013 is just and proper and warrants no interefrence.

¶33

Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to address the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of LRs of Pukhraj Gehlot (supra). While agreeing with the observations made therein, it is also crucial to consider that the exclusive subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority should be evaluated in the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The cited judgment deals with a situation where the appointing authority overruled the opinion of the screening and review committees, ordering compulsory retirement despite their favorable opinion.

¶34

In the present case, both the screening committee and the reviewing authority applied their minds, concluding that the petitioner is unfit to continue in service.

¶35

The affidavit filed by the respondent, to which no rejoinder has been filed, indicates that the screening committee, consisting of the SDO, Sriganganagar, and Accounts Officer, DRDA, along with the petitioner, recommended cases of six others to the reviewing committee. The reviewing committee, comprising the District Collector and Additional District Collector (Administration), Sriganganagar, made a decision to retire the petitioner after due consideration.

¶36

If it were a case of the punishing authority disagreeing with the screening and review committees, recording independent reasons would be necessary. However, in this instance, both

[2024:RJ-JD:309]

[CW-6125/2013]

(5 of 5)

committees supported the decision, and therefore, detailed reasons are not explicitly required.

¶41

No doubt, the impugned administrative order, under challenge before the Tribunal, could have been more precisely worded to confirm that the reviewing authority considered the screening committee's report, but insisting on this detail seems overly technical and may give undue advantage based on any inadvertence by the competent authority.

¶42

As an upshot of my discussion, I find no grounds for interference are made out.

¶43

The petition is dismissed.

¶44

(ARUN MONGA), J

¶45

73-MMA / Sumit

¶46

Whether fit for reporting: Yes/No

Nand Ram v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Ram v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Raj. Ayurved University, Jodhpur

Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangi Lal Lohar Vs Maharana Pratap Uni.of Agri.and Tech.and Anr.

Satya Narain Vs State and Ors.

Dr.a.L.Pancholi Vs Raj.Vidyapeeth Deemed Uni. and Anr.