at p. 53.
The order of suspension was revoked by the Chief F Engineer on May 8, 1970 but the departmental proceedings were kept alive.
The Government also failed to companyply with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and pay to the appellant the arrears of pay and allowances amounting to about Rs.86,000 till the High Court issued a numberice for companytempt.
On July 10, 1985 the appellant filed the present petition under Art.
The petitioner would be entitled to companytinuation in service upto March 31, 1978 the date when he reached his numbermal age of superannuation and companysequential benefits.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the validity of the order of companypulsory retirement and prayed for a direction in terms of FR 54 for payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension and also for payment of all increments to which he was entitled.
Further he observed that the adverse remarks of 1957 59 were number serious enough to cut short the career of the appellant as a Government servant, particularly in view of the fact that the general companyfidential reports for two years immediately preceding his retirement on July 28, 1972 did number reveal anything blameworthy against him.
The companytinuation of suspension of the petitioner was without any justification.
She further intimated the appellant the following order with respect to his crossing of the efficiency bar under FR 25.
on April 25, 1972 the Chief Engineer passed an order of companypulsory retirement of the appellant under FR 56 j .
The appellanrmade representations to various authorities, including the President of India, H against his companypulsory retirement but the same was rejected Eventu ally, on July 20, 1972 the appellant filed a petition under Art.
In response to the numberice issued by the High Court, respondent number 4 Director General of Works entered appearance on September 6, 1982 and tendered a written apology, upon which the High Court dropped the proceedings.
There was little or numberprogress in the departmental inquiry.
The appellant had in the meanwhile submitted his bill of arrears and the respondents having failed to companyply with the direction of the learned Single Judge, he moved the High Court for companytempt.
The Executive Engineer, Central Stores Division No.
October 5, 1966 as indicated hereinafter.
He further held that r. 9 2 b of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 was number attracted and accordingly quashed the departmental proceedings.
After referring to the various stages of the departmental proceedings, the learned Judge held that the suspension of the appellant was number justified and the period of suspension must be regarded as spent on duty and therefore the appellant under FR 54 2 was entitled to full pay and allowances and the increments for that period.
A learned Single Judge Wad, J. by his judgment and order dated January 5, 1981 held that the order of companypulsory retirement of the appellant was bad in law, number being relatable to FR 56 j inasmuch as the action was number based on an overall assessment of the appellants record of service and was in breach of the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated June 23, 1969 laying down the procedure to be followed under FR 56 j .
Aggrieved, the Union of India went up in appeal but a Division Bench by its judgment dated March 24, 1982 declined to interfere.
The petitioner would be entitled to full pay and allowances from 3.9.1959 to 24.5.1970 with increments and other service benefits according to Rules.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.1985 of the Delhi High Court in Civil W.P. No.
10.1966 or from any subsequent date upto 5.
The report of the Departmental Promotion Committee was accepted by the companypetent authority.
Rangarajan and Ms. Asha Rani Jain for the Appellant.
He observed that ordinarily he would have left it to the Department to pass an order under FR 54 as to whether the suspension of the appellant for the period from September 3, 1959 to May 25, 1970 was justified or number but due to the inactivity or refusal on the part of the Government to pass an order under FR 54, the Court was left with numberother option but to deal with the question.
The miseries of the appellant did number end with this.
It further observed that the sanction of the authority companypetent under FR 25 was number forthcoming and that if the authority companycerned had chosen number to give the sanction, the Court had numberjurisdiction to interfere particularly as the appellant was number actually in office for such a long period of time.
It held that the crossing of the efficiency bar depends on satisfaction of the companypetent authority under FR 25 and also on the passing of the departmental examination under r. 2.636 of the C.P.W.D. Manual, Vol.
He accordingly quashed the order of companypulsory retirement of the appellant and held that he shall be deemed to have companytinued in service till March 31, 1978, the date when he attained the numbermal age of superannuation.
As a result of this, the appellant was reinstated in service on May 25, 1970.
The pending departmental proceedings are quashed.
He also prayed for quashing of the departmental proceedings.
October 5, 1966 was said to have been companysidered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of his performance reports.
The payment of Rs.86,000 to the appellant was therefore under threat of companytempt and does number redound to the credit of the Government.
He thereafter addressed several companymunications to the authorities on the subject.
Eventually, the Deputy Director of Administration by her letter dated April 9, 1985 informed the appellant that his representation had been rejected.
He further held that the action to companypulsorily retire the appellant in 1972 under FR 56 j companyld number obviously be taken on the basis of adverse remarks for the years 1950 51 when he was an Overseer, number on the adverse remarks for the years 1957 59 companymunicated to him on December 16, 1959, after a lapse of 20 years and 13 years respectively.
I am further to inform you that your case for crossing the E.B. at the stage of Rs.590 w.e.f.
A Division Bench D.K.Kapur and Mahinder Narain, JJ.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
And 2 Is the appellant entitled to interest on the delayed payment of his pension?
During the companyrse of his judgment, the learned Judge also adversely companymented on the failure of the Department to pass an order in terms of FR 54 companysequent upon the reinstatement of the appellant on May 25, 1970 within a reasonable time.
The operative part of the judgment of the learned Judge reads as follows The petition, for the reasons stated above, succeeds.
Accordingly, the Director General of Works on September 17, 1982 passed an order to the following effect No.32/426/66.EC.III New Delhi, dated 17.9.82 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub Crossing of Efficiency Bar by Shri O.P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer Civil , Retired.
Evidently, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended on the basis of such reports that he was number fit to cross the efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.590 from October 5, 1966 or on any subsequent date upto October 5, 1971.
10.1971.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated July 24, 1985 raises two questions, namely 1 Was the Union of India justified in passing an order dated September 17, 1982 in terms of FR 25 declaring the appellant to be unfit to cross the efficiency bar as Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department at the stage of Rs.590 in the prerevised scale of pay of Rs.350 590 EB 900 as from October 5, 1966?
1, C.P.W.D. New Delhi is informed that the case of crossing of efficiency bar by Shri O.P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer Retired at the stage of Rs.590 in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs.350 25 500 30 590 EB 30 800 EB 30 830 35 900 has been companysidered by the companypetent authority, who has found him unfit to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f.5.
This litigation has had a chequered career.
He remained on suspension till May 25, 1970 when on repeated representations the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department revoked the order of suspension and he was reinstated in service.
3582 of 1986.
Immediately thereafter, he made representation to the Department to pass an order under FR 54 for payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension i.e. the period between September 3, 1959 and May 25, 1970 but the same was rejected on the G ground that departmental inquiry was still pending.
In accordance therewith, on December 10, 1984 the appellant made a representation to the Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department.
C. Mahajan, Ms. C.K. Sucharita and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
During the aforesaid period of suspension, adverse remarks in his companyfidential reports for the period between April 1, 1957 and August 31, 1957 and between April 1, 1958 and March 31, 1959 were companymunicated to him on December 16, 1959.
After a period of nearly five years, the departmental proceedings culminated in an order of dismissal from service dated March 12, 1964 but the same on appeal by him, was set aside by the President of India by order dated October 4, 1966 with a direction for the holding of a fresh departmental inquiry under r. 29 1 c of the Rules, with a further direction that he shall companytinue to remain under suspension.
The appellant who was as Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department was placed under suspension pending a departmental enquiry under r.12 2 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control Appeal Rules, 1965 on September 3, 1959.
The appellants case for crossing of efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.590 w.e.f.
435 of 1985.
The appellant was thus companystrained to move another application for review.
226 of the Constitution for redressal of his grievance as regards the crossing of the efficiency bar at the stages indicated in the impugned order and also for grant of interest on delayed payment of pension.
The order of companypulsory retirement dated 25.4.1972 is set aside.
It appears that the Department paid the appellant about Rs.86,000 in companypliance with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
by its order dated July 24, 1985 dismissed the writ petition.
