Retention beyond age 55 is discretionary, governed by service record and public interest, not a vested right.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.08.2015, by which his departmental appeal against denial of extension of service beyond the age of 55 years was rejected, as well as the underlying order dated 12.08.2014 refusing such extension.

The petitioner had completed 55 years of age on 30.10.2013 and sought continuation in service up to the age of 58 years. He asserted that his service record was satisfactory, that no major disciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him, and that his alleged absence was attributable to the respondents’ refusal to permit him to mark attendance.

The respondents relied on the petitioner’s alleged 645 days of absence from duty, registration of an FIR under Sections 332, 353, 186 and 452 IPC, and his having undergone one month’s civil imprisonment in a civil proceeding.

The petitioner’s earlier writ petition, CWP-8310-2015, had been disposed of with a direction to decide his departmental appeal, pursuant to which the impugned appellate order was passed.

Whether the respondents were justified in declining to extend the petitioner’s service beyond the age of 55 years on the basis of his overall service record, alleged absence, and civil imprisonment?

Whether the impugned orders were arbitrary, violative of natural justice, or otherwise unsustainable because the petitioner was not granted extension and was allegedly not given an adequate opportunity to controvert the adverse material?

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, could reappreciate disputed factual issues or substitute its assessment for that of the competent authority?

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, holding that continuation in service beyond the age of 55 years is not a vested right but is governed by the applicable service rules, Government instructions, the employee’s service record, and considerations of public interest.

It considered Rule 3 of the Haryana Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966, concerning the duties and conduct of government employees, along with Note 1 to Rule 5.32-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, and Government instructions dated 23.10.1973, 12.12.1998 and 11.04.2005 relating to retention of employees beyond the age of 55 years.

The applicable principle was that an employee whose integrity is reasonably considered doubtful, on an assessment of the overall service record, need not be retained beyond the prescribed age in public interest.

The Court further applied the principles of judicial review that disputed questions of fact and administrative assessments will not ordinarily be reappreciated under Articles 226/227, absent arbitrariness, perversity, violation of statutory rules, or breach of natural justice.

It also accepted that refusal of extension beyond the normal age of service does not amount to dismissal or removal attracting Article 311(2).

The competent authorities had not relied on a single adverse circumstance; they considered the petitioner’s alleged 645 days of absence over different periods together with the fact of his civil imprisonment and recorded that his integrity appeared doubtful.

Since extension beyond 55 years was discretionary and dependent upon the employee’s overall record and public interest, the petitioner could not claim it as a matter of right.

The Court also found that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and that his written replies and submissions were considered before the appellate order was passed, thereby negating the allegation of breach of natural justice.

His contention that the absence was caused by the respondents’ refusal to permit attendance involved disputed questions of fact, which the writ court declined to adjudicate or reweigh against the findings of the competent authority.

In the absence of demonstrated arbitrariness, perversity, or violation of the governing rules, the Court held that it could not substitute its own assessment for that of the administrative authorities.

The challenge to the appellate order dated 07.08.2015 and the original order dated 12.08.2014 was rejected.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.