Daya Nand vs State Of Haryana on 3 April, 2008
Notwithstanding whatsoever has already been written, it
is trite that an employee has no vested right to continue in service
after 55 years of age, which is merely an extension and it is the sole
prerogative of the employer to grant or not to grant extension to an
employee after satisfying itself with the work and conduct of the
employee based on his track record. Reference may be made to Daya
Nand v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) CLJ (Service) 284 (FB). The
employer may remove the dead wood and in public interest pay good
bye to the inefficient employees. There is no dispute that premature
retirement is not a punitive action. At the same time, it is also true
that such jurisdiction should be exercised in a judicious manner and
not capriciously. There should be sufficient material to substantiate
the action of premature retirement and such an action should not be
arbitrary and mala-fide based on no material evidence.