OM PRAKASH ASATI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

OM PRAKASH ASATI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

An order of premature retirement cannot be set aside merely because the criterion adopted by the Screening Committee was held illegal; the impugned order must be evaluated objectively based on the employee's service record and cannot be described as arbitrary or unfair when deterioration in service and punishments are apparent.

Parties
Petitioner: Om Prakash Asati; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondents: U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposal
Outcome
Special Leave Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Premature Retirement, Fundamental Rule 56(c), Screening Committee, Confidential Reports, Punishments in Service
Service Law Premature Retirement Fundamental Rule 56(c) Screening Committee Confidential Reports Punishments in Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Om Prakash Asati

Petitioner

State of U.P.

Respondent

U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the setting aside of the criterion adopted by the Screening Committee/Jal Nigam ipso facto results in negation of the order of premature retirement
  2. 2 Whether the order of premature retirement is sustainable based on objective assessment of the Petitioner's service record

Ratio Decidendi

An order of premature retirement cannot be set aside merely because the criterion adopted by the Screening Committee was held illegal; the impugned order must be evaluated objectively based on the employee's service record and cannot be described as arbitrary or unfair when deterioration in service and punishments are apparent.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • The impugned orders dated 27.3.2006 and 19.7.2006 passed by the High Court, upholding the order dated 1.9.2005, were fully justified and call for no interference.