- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 10 December 2008
- Bench
- Pradeep Nandrajog, J.R. Midha
- Case no.
- RFA 206/2002
Judgment
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J. December 10, 2008 mm
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : December 02, 2008 % Judgment delivered on : December 10, 2008 + RFA 206/2002 PGF LTD. & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate VERSUS JOGINDER SINGH BEDI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Suresh C.Gupta, Adv. and Mr. Balvinder Ralhan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Joginder Singh Bedi served successfully under Punjab State Electricity Board and on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years retired on 31.5.1989. The appellant, a private limited company thought that services of Joginder Singh Bedi could be utilized by it. Vide Ex.P-2, on 21.6.1990, Joginder Singh Bedi was employed by the appellant as a Branch Manager. He was informed that he would be on probation for a period of one year. 2. Joginder Singh Bedi continued to work with the appellant and earned promotions in senior scales on different dates till he started having problem with some senior officers of the appellant. His grievance was that B.K.Kalra, the Vice- President of the appellant and Sh.D.N.Bhardwaj, the Manager Personal and Administration became inimical towards him and conspired to oust him from service. He alleged that the conspiracy was manifest when on behalf of the appellant, B.K.Kalra issued the circular No.20/95 dated 24.3.1995 informing all employees of the company as under:- "Age of retirement:- Every employee shall retire on completing 58 years of age which shall be the age of superannuation. However, the Management reserves its right to extend the service of an employee at its sole discretion beyond the age of years. An employee can be retired/superannuated earlier to his/her attaining the age of retirement, if he/she is not found medically fit to perform the duties efficiently and diligently. Extension of service after retirement:- After retirement/superannuation the services of an employee may be extended for a period of two years at a time i.e. from 58 years to 60 years. Subsequently, extension of only one year at a time shall be granted for next five years i.e. till attaining the age of 65 years. It will be done only when the Management is satisfied that the employee is fit for extension of service. After completion of 65 years of service no further extension whatsoever shall be granted. In case of employees who have completed 58, 60, 61, 62, 63 or 64 years of age, the issuance of this circular shall be deemed as notice to the concerned employee to retire on last working day of the month i.e. April 1995. However the concerned employees may put up their representation for extension of service. In case they are found to be fit for further extension of service, the extension may be granted accordingly. Date of retirement:- Date and time of retirement shall be the last date of the month of the 58th year of the age or in case of extended service the last date of the extended month of the period extended. The retirement shall take effect in the afternoon of the last date above mentioned." 3. Joginder Singh Bedi claimed that the circular dated 20/95, Ex.P-20, was followed by a letter terminating his service with immediate effect on 8.4.1995, Ex.P-22, which reads as under:- "Mr. J.S.Bedi, Manager Maturity SUB: TERMINATION OF SERVICE Your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. You are further directed to hand over the charge to Mr. S.K.Sharma. You stand relieved from the duty w.e.f. forenoon of 10th April, 95 and settle your dues with Accounts department. (B.K.KALIA) VICE PRESIDENT (C)" 4. Narrating the aforesaid facts and alleging that the termination was illegal inasmuch as it was not preceeded by any show cause notice and that the principles enshrined under Article 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India were violated h
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.