SWAMI SARAN SAKSENA versus STATE OF U.P.

SWAMI SARAN SAKSENA versus STATE OF U.P.

Compulsory retirement of the appellant was not justified as there was no evidence of sudden deterioration in work quality or integrity after he was permitted to cross the second Efficiency Bar, and the State failed to provide adequate material justifying the retirement.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: S. S. Saksena; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Efficiency Bar, Temporary Government Servant
Service Law Compulsory Retirement Efficiency Bar Temporary Government Servant

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. S. Saksena

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compulsory retirement of the appellant was justified after being allowed to cross the second Efficiency Bar.
  2. 2 Applicability of Article 465 and Article 465-A of Civil Service Regulations to temporary government servants.

Ratio Decidendi

Compulsory retirement of the appellant was not justified as there was no evidence of sudden deterioration in work quality or integrity after he was permitted to cross the second Efficiency Bar, and the State failed to provide adequate material justifying the retirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Division Bench (dated May 7, 1976) of High Court is set aside.
  • Order of Single Judge quashing the State Government's compulsory retirement order is restored.