Karnataka High Court
J K Lonakar vs Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies ... on 13 February, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
®
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.12151/2006 (S)
BETWEEN:
J.K. LONAKAR
SON OF SRI KRISHNAPPA LONAKAR
AGE: 54 YEARS, HOSARITTI POST,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI
... PETITIONER
[BY SHRI R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV.]
AND:
KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LIMITED,
NO.16/I, MILLERS TANK BED AREA,
BANGALORE-560 052
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECJTOR
... RESPONDENT
[BY SHRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADV.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/20-08-2004 AND
THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.06.2006 WHICH ARE
ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - M AND ANNEXURE - U.
:2:
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The core question in this writ petition is as to whether an order of compulsory retirement from service passed by the respondent is stigmatic and valid in law?
2. The said question has arisen in the following factual background:
(a) Petitioner joined service of the respondent, a Government owned Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. He was promoted as an Office Manager and thereafter, as an Assistant Manager. He worked from April 1993 to February 1998 as Assistant Manager at Karwar and also functioned as In-charge District Manager of Karwar District from 20.09.1996 to 27.11.1997. By an office order dated 24.02.1998, the respondent kept the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry, on the allegation of supervisory lapses in respect of alleged misappropriation committed by Mr. A.K.Sheikh, who was working as Depot Manager of Sirsi Wholesale :3: Point. On 24.06.1998, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner. On 15.09.1998, an enquiry under Rule 11 of KCS (CCA) Rules 1957 was ordered by appointing Mr. H.P.Jinaraj, as the Enquiry Officer. On 14.11.2000, Mr. H.G.Shivarajappa, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, in place of Mr. H.P.Jinaraj. On 26.11.2001, Mr. H.Shivaramu, I.A.S. (Retd.), was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, in place of Mr. H.G.Shivarajappa, to conduct the enquiry.
When the enquiry commenced on 11.10.2002, the order of suspension was revoked and petitioner was reinstated to duty pending enquiry and was posted to work as Assistant Manager at Koppal. Petitioner reported to duty on 13.02.2003. Having worked for two days, petitioner sought three days casual leave and the same was sanctioned. Petitioner received a message to appear in the enquiry at Bangalore on 04.03.2003. Petitioner sent a letter dated 04.03.2003 to the District Manager and informed that he has to stay at Bangalore for few more days for the purpose of collecting some documents required in connection with the Disciplinary Enquiry and :4: has to go to his native place on some personal work. He sought leave from 05.03.2003 up to 31.03.2003.
(b) Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 21.03.2003 and alleged that the petitioner had sent a telegram requesting for leave up to 04.03.2003 and has not attended to duty after 04.03.2003 and sought explanation for the absence from duty. Petitioner submitted a reply dated 07.04.2003. Petitioner sent a letter dated 20.04.2003, enclosing a Medical Certificate dated 19.04.2003 issued by Dr. Mrutyunjaya V. Hiremath, Hosaritti, certifying that the petitioner is suffering from chest pain and blood pressure and that he has been advised treatment and bed rest and sought leave on medical ground. Respondent issued another show cause notice dated 31.03.2004 and sought explanation before 02.04.2004, as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service under Rule 108 of KCSR. Petitioner having received the said notice on 05.04.2004, submitted a reply dated 08.04.2004. Petitioner received a communication dated 23.08.2004 from the District Manager, Koppal, forwarding an order dated :5: 18/20.08.2004 of the respondent, whereby, the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect.
(c) Petitioner sent a communication dated 31.08.2004 and pointed out that, when a notice dated 31.03.2004 issued under Rule 108 is pending consideration, it is not lawful to compulsorily retire him from service, in exercise of the power under Rule 285(4) KCSR. Petitioner sent reminders dated 21.02.2005 and 30.06.2005. Respondent sent an office order dated 12.07.2005 stating that, as per enquiry report none of the charges levelled against the petitioner vide Articles of Charge issued on 24.06.1998 was proved and the charges are dropped and that the period of suspension from 24.02.1998 to 22.11.2002 is treated as unauthorised absence only. Petitioner submitted representations dated 26.07.2005 and 13.04.2005, to reinstate him to duty. Respondent issued an endorsement dated 17.06.2006, stating that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on 18.08.2004, for long unauthorised absence, in terms of a Circular dated 27.07.1994 and that, in respect :6: of charges as per the order dated 12.07.2005, levelled against him, while he was working as In-charge District Manager, Karwar was closed and the two being different issues, the request of the petitioner to rejoin duty cannot be considered. This writ petition is directed against the order of compulsory retirement and an endorsement of the respondent, as at Annexures - M and U respectively.
3. The respondent has not filed counter to the writ petition. Even the record relating to the issuance of Annexures-M and U were not produced for perusal of the Court.
4. Shri R. Krishnamurthy, learned advocate, by placing reliance on an order dated 04.07.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.47867/2004 (M. Krishna Murthy vs. Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.), which was affirmed in Writ Appeal No.15165/2011, by a judgment dated 24.02.2012 (Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., vs. M. Krishna Murthy), contended that the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner being 'stigmatic' and the same having not been :7: passed after holding a Disciplinary Enquiry is arbitrary and illegal. He further contended that the impugned order suffers from malice in law and is not in public interest or in the interest of the Corporation and that the same has been passed as a short cut to impose the punishment for alleged unauthorised absence. He submitted that the petitioner having attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012, the impugned order and the endorsement may be quashed and the respondent be directed to pay 75% of salary and allowances as was ordered in Writ Appeal No.15165/2011 and extend all the consequential service benefits, by treating the petitioner as having been on duty till the age of he attaining the age of superannuation.
5. Shri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned advocate, on the other hand contended that the petitioner had lost interest in the work and remained absent for duty unauthorisedly and for long period, which affected the functioning of the Depot, wherein the petitioner was working as a Supervisory Official and hence, in public interest, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service, which being not a punishment, of either a removal :8: or a dismissal, since none of the service benefits of the petitioner till the date of compulsory retirement was forfeited, the decision taken by the respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner, being neither arbitrary nor illegal, does not warrant any interference. He submitted that, in view of a representation dated 13.04.2006 submitted by the petitioner, an endorsement dated 17.06.2006 was issued, informing the petitioner that he cannot be reinstated to duty, since he had been compulsorily retired from service. Learned counsel, alternatively, submitted that in case the decision of respondent vide Annexure-M is not up-held, the respondent may be permitted to initiate Disciplinary Enquiry and regulate the matter in terms of the outcome thereof.
6. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by an order dated 18/20-08-2004 vide Annexure - M. The order of compulsory retirement has been passed by making a reference to a Circular of the respondent bearing No.KFCSC: ADM: DIS: RETIREMENT:
COMPULSORY: 94-95; 3530 dated July, 27, 1994. The :9: said Circular has been issued pursuant to a resolution of the respondent-Corporation ("Corporation" for short), adopting in its 159th meeting, Rule 285 (4) of KCSR. The Circular provides that, if an officer/employee has completed 15 years of service and upon review, if his service is found to be not satisfactory, can be compulsorily retired from the service of the Corporation. The circular provides that, upon review of service record, an officer/employee is found fit to be compulsorily retired, such employee can be compulsorily retired by issue of 3 months notice or paying 3 months' salary.
7. The material part of the order of compulsory retirement vide Annexure-M being relevant, the same reads as under;
............ ¢£ÁAPÀ 27/31-03-2004 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉðñÀPÀgÀÄ, £ÉÆÃn¸ï£À°è PÉ.¹.J¸ï.Dgï.gÀƯïì 108 gÀAvÉ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15-02-2003 jAzÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdjAiÀiÁzÀ PÁgÀt, ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ KPÉ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. EzÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ ²æà eÉ.PÉ.¯ÉÆÃtÌgï, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ, EªÀgÀÄ F £ÉÆÃnøïUÉ GvÀÛj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15-02- 2003 jAzÀ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, dªÁ¨ÁÝj : 10 : ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝj, ¤®ðPÀëvɬÄAzÀ, C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁVzÁÝgÉA§ CA±À zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£Á£ÀÄ ²æà eÉ.PÉ.¯ÉÆÃtÌgï ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀªÀgÀ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪɣÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®èªÉA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀÖµÀתÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀjÃAiÀĪÀgÀ ¤µÉ×AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVzÉ. ¤UÀªÀĪÀÅ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ ¥ÀrvÀgÀ «vÀgÀuÉAiÀÄAxÀºÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀgÀªÁzÀ PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¸Áܦ¸À®àlÖ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ d£À»vÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀĪÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ J¯Áè £ËPÀgÀgÀÆ CªÀjUÉ ªÀ»¹zÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀjà £ËPÀgÀgÀ zsÉÆÃgÀuÉAiÀÄÄ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ »vÁ¸ÀQÛUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁVzÉ, JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÀUÀArgÀĪɣÀÄ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ²æà eÉ.PÉ.¯ÉÆÃtÌgï, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÀÜ¥ÀPÀgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁð¤¹gÀĪɣÀÄ.
8. The petitioner having submitted representations as against the said order, an endorsement dated 17.06.2006, as at Annexure - U was issued, the material portion of which being relevant, the same reads as under:
G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ f¯Áè PÀbÉÃj, PÉÆ¥Àà¼z À ° À è PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¸ÀĪÁUÀ ¢ÃWÁðªÀ¢Aü iÀÄ C£À¢Pü ÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁwAiÀÄ D¥Ázs£ À AÉ iÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27-07-1994 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ PÀbÉÃj DzÉñÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
18-08-2004 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.: 11 :
PÀbÉÃj DzÉñÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12-07-2005 gÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ 1997-98 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è f¯Áè ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, PÁgÀªÁgÀz° À è PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¸ÀĪÁUÀ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀU¼ À À §UÉÎ ºÀÆqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝ E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuAÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
F JgÀqÀÆ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¤ªÀÄä ¢ÃWÁðªÀ¢Aü iÀÄ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁwAiÀÄ §UÉÎ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸  ® À Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®èªAÉ zÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
A mere reading of the said order i.e. Annexure-M would indicate that it is 'stigmatic' in character. Allegation against the petitioner was not only that he remained unauthorisedly absent for duty w.e.f. 15.2.2003, but was irresponsible, negligent and his integrity is doubtful. The comments are stigmatic in nature.
9. Word 'stigma', according to the dictionary meaning is something, that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, a mark, sign etc. indicating that something is not considered normal or standard. It is a blemish, defect, disgrace, disrepute, imputation, mark of disgrace or shame and mark or label indicating deviation from a norm. In the context of an order of termination or compulsory retirement of a servant, 'stigma' would mean a : 12 : statement in the order indicating his misconduct or lack of integrity.
10. In the case of Chandu Lal v. Pan American World Airways Inc., (1985) 2 SCC 727, services of the workman was terminated on the ground of "loss of confidence in him". It was held that the order attached a stigma on the workman as want of confidence indicated an adverse facet in his character, namely, that he had failed to behave up to the expected standard of conduct.
11. The Corporation having issued the Circular dated July 27, 1994 containing the norms in the matter of passing an order of Compulsory Retirement against an officer/employee, the same is binding on it. It is trite that when an employer lays down the procedure for taking any action against the employee, which would cause civil or evil consequences, it is imperative on the part of the employer to scrupulously follow the same.
12. In the case of Vitarelli Vs. Seaton (359 US 535 (1958), it has been stated as follows:
: 13 :
"An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged. ...Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. ....This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with that sword."
13. Though the Circular dated 27.07.1994, which finds reference at Sl.No.16 of the impugned order of Compulsory retirement, provides for issue of 3 months' advance notice or payment of 3 months' salary, prior to giving effect to the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner was neither served with such a notice nor was paid 3 months' salary, prior to his compulsory retirement from service of the Corporation. Managing Director of the Corporation having taken a decision on 19.08.2004 vide Annexure-M, the same was served on the petitioner on 23.08.2004 vide Annexure-L and the petitioner was compulsorily retired with immediate effect.
14. The said Circular provides for review of the service record of the officer/employee whose case is to be considered for compulsory retirement. The impugned : 14 : order does not indicate the entire service record of the petitioner having been reviewed by the Corporation. The subject matter of Annexure-M, itself indicates that on account of the unauthorised absence of the petitioner for duty w.e.f. 15.02.2003, he was compulsorily ordered to be retired from service.
15. The law relating to compulsory retirement of an employee from service has got crystalised into definitive principles as is clear from the decision in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314, wherein, it has been summarised as follows:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.: 15 :
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(vii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.
(emphasis supplied by me)
16. In the case of Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja Vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation, (2007) 10 SCC 71, it has been held as follows:
"24. In this case, however, the period of probation as provided for under the statute had expired and his misconduct had been taken note of. Such misconduct was not founded only upon absence from duty, but also upon carelessness, negligence on the part of the appellant and lack of devotion amongst others."
XXXXX "28. From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is evident that termination of services of the appellant purporting to discharge him simpliciter cannot be accepted, being stigmatic in nature. The form of the order terminating the services coupled with the background facts clearly leads to the conclusion that the order impugned in the writ petition by the appellant was punitive."
(emphasis supplied by me)
17. In the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (1990) 3 SCC 504, Apex Court has held as follows:
: 16 :
"32. On a consideration of the above decisions the legal position that now emerges is that even though the order of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous language without making any imputations against the government servant who is directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the government servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere form of the order in such cases cannot deter the court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the concerned government servant as has been held by this Court in Anoop Jaiswal case. This being the position the respondent-State cannot defend the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant in the instant case on the mere plea that the order has been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code which prima facie does not make any imputation or does not cast any stigma on the service career of the appellant. But in view of the clear and specific averments made by the respondent-State that the impugned order has been made to compulsorily retire the appellant from service under the aforesaid rule as the appellant was found to have committed grave financial irregularities leading to financial loss to the State, the impugned order cannot but be said to have been made by way of punishment. As such, such an order is in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as it is arbitrary as it vio- lates principles of natural justice and the same has not been made bona fide".
18. In this case, the material part of the order of compulsory retirement vide Annexure-M, noticed supra, makes it clear that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on account of (i) his unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 15.2.2003, (ii) irresponsibility and (iii) : 17 : negligence. The said order makes it clear that there was unauthorised absence from duty. It also states that, 'the petitioner's integrity is doubtful'. The Managing Director has arrived at a conclusion that the attitude of the petitioner towards Corporations and public interest is not conducive.
19. Upon representations being submitted by the petitioner, in the endorsement issued on 17.06.2006 vide Annexure-U, it has been made clear that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service is on account of "his long unauthorised absence while he was working in the District Office at Koppal and the charge sheet issued on 12.07.2005 as having been closed." It is clear from the impugned order and the endorsement, that the respondent did not review the entire service record of the petitioner and did not form a bona fide opinion that the petitioner having completed 15 years of service, has become a dead wood and a liability for the Corporation, for being continued in service. It is clear from the impugned order that the petitioner was compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment for his alleged absence from duty : 18 : w.e.f. 15.2.2003. The impugned order is stigmatic and the petitioner has been punished without holding an enquiry into the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence w.e.f. 15.2.2003. No record was produced by the respondent in justification of the allegation about the petitioner's integrity being doubtful or he having acted irresponsibly or negligently much less about his incompetence to perform the duty. The impugned order is most arbitrary.
20. In view of the above, I am of the view that the respondent is not justified in compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, without holding an enquiry into the allegation of unauthorised absence for duty w.e.f. 15.2.2003. The impugned order and the endorsement being vitiated and invalid are liable to be quashed. They suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out in W.A.15165/2011 decided on 24.2.2012.
21. Since the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, there cannot be any enquiry at this length of time, into the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence for duty for which the show cause : 19 : notice dated 27/31.03.2004 was issued and a reply dated 08.04.2004 was submitted.
In the result, writ petition is allowed and the order of compulsory retirement and also endorsement of the respondent, as at Annexures-M and U respectively are hereby quashed. The petitioner is deemed to have retired from service on the date he attained the age of superannuation i.e., on 31.05.2012. Consequently, the respondent is directed to pay 75% of the monetary benefits, as was ordered in W.A.15165/2011 and extend all other consequential benefits, within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order becomes available to the respondent along with costs. Advocate's fee is quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh/Ksj/-