[2026:RJ-JP:3557] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17824/2015 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dausa. ----Petitioners Versus Ram Kishan Meena son of Shri Ram Sahai Meena, aged about 62 years, resident of Viilage & Post Jasota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Compulsorily retired as Teacher Gr.III, Government Upper Primary School, Kalota, District Dausa (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gautam Bhadadra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/01/2026 1. Petitioner- State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Elementary Education Department has filed this writ petition challenging the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (Raj.), whereby order of compulsory retirement dated 04.04.2001 issued by the competent authority under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996') has been quashed by the Tribunal. [2026:RJ-JP:3557] (2 of 6) [CW-17824/2015] 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was appointed as Teacher Grade-III in petitioner- Department vide order dated 15.12.1975. In exercise of powers under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, Screening Committee was constituted by the petitioner for examining the record of such employees, who turned to be ineffective and inefficient and were no more useful in the Department. Such Committee recommended name of the petitioner and accordingly order dated 04.04.2001 was issued at premature stage to retire respondent No.1 compulsorily. 3. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15830/2010. The aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn and this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2011, granted liberty to respondent No.1 to file an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. It was further observed that the Tribunal shall consider the pendency of the writ petition against the order of compulsory retirement while taking a decision over application for condonation of delay. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without properly examining the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, same was allowed by learned Tribunal and appeal filed by respondent No.1 has been accepted vide order dated 14.03.2014. Learned counsel submits that no proper reasons have been assigned by learned Tribunal for condoning the delay. He also submits that it is not always necessary that before issuance of order of compulsory retirement, the Government is required to show details of penalties or adverse entries in ACR of the incumbent, even the general behaviour of the employee is a relevant factor so as to decide as to whether [2026:RJ-JP:3557] (3 of 6) [CW-17824/2015] employee was deadwood for the Department to be weeded out while exercising powers under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. In the instant case, the recommending authority has made it clear that respondent No.1 was a habitual absentee due to which on number of occasions inconvenience was caused to the petitioner- Government in properly imparting education to the students. However, merely by giving finding that there was no penalties in the record of the respondent No.1, order of compulsory retirement have been quashed by the Tribunal. While doing so, it has also not been appreciated by the Tribunal that order of compulsory retirement cannot be considered to be a penalty as the incumbent is permitted to have all the retiral dues including pension and gratuity. He further submits that compulsory retirement is a matter of subjective satisfaction and on the basis of record of the employee, such satisfaction can be drawn by the Government. The Appellate Tribunal in utter ignorance of fundamental principles relating to compulsory retirement, has passed impugned order dated 14.03.2014. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and supported order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal. He submits that earlier writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 was although withdrawn by him, yet while granting such liberty, this Court directed the Tribunal to consider the fact that the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was pending before this Court. He submits that condoning delay is a matter of discretion, which has rightly been exercised by learned Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that no other material objection except delay has been [2026:RJ-JP:3557] (4 of 6) [CW-17824/2015] raised by the petitioner while challenging the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there was not even iota of evidence available with the petitioner to show that respondent No.1 was either ineffective, or inefficient employee. In his entire service career not a single penalty order under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was imposed upon the petitioner nor has he ever been communicated any adverse remark in his Annual Confidential Report. Thus, there was no basis available with the recommending authority to assume that the petitioner was a useless employee, who should be weeded out from the Department. He submits that thus the order for compulsory retirement was passed only on the basis of fake assumptions, not supported by record of the petitioner. Thus, learned Tribunal, after meticulously examining pleadings of the parties, material and documents on record as well as law prevailing at the relevant time has passed order dated 14.03.2014 in which there is no infirmity or illegality, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that the respondent- authorities have got power under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 to retire an employee compulsorily at premature stage. However, such power is neither unfettered, nor unbridled and is bound to be exercised within the four corners of the guidelines laid down under the Rules. Language of Rule 53(1) is explicitly clear which states [2026:RJ-JP:3557] (5 of 6) [CW-17824/2015] that if Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, the appointing authority upon having been satisfied that the concerned Government servant has, on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or has inefficiency in due performance of official duties, lost his utility, may require the concerned Government servant to retire in public interest. 9. In the instant case, no material whatsoever was placed by the petitioner-State Government either before the Tribunal or before this Court to show that there was any evidence to show anything with regard to doubtful integrity of the petitioner, nor is there anything on record to show that on account of inefficiency the petitioner had lost his utility. Admittedly, there were no penalties in the entire service career of respondent No.1, nor was he ever communicated any adverse remarks in ACR. Under these circumstances, there was no foundation for assuming that the petitioner was a useless employee, fit to be compulsorily retired. Although, it is a trite law that compulsory retirement is a matter of subjective satisfaction, but such satisfaction cannot be assumed in air without there being any material on record. Under these circumstances, merely on the statement made by the State Government that the petitioner was habitual absentee and without supporting the same with any notice under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951 or any other similar material, recommendation to retire the petitioner compulsorily could not have been made. [2026:RJ-JP:3557] (6 of 6) [CW-17824/2015] 10. As regards contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed by respondent No.1 was suffering from delay, this Court finds that condonation of delay is a discretionary power available to the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where earlier respondent No.1 approached this Court by way of filing writ petition and in which liberty was granted to him to file appeal before the Tribunal, no error has been committed by Tribunal in condoning the appeal. More so, factor of condonation of delay is always attached to merits of the case. In the instant case, it is clear that respondent No.1 was compulsorily retired in whimsical and arbitrary manner, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in condoning the delay. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any substance and merit, and same is hereby dismissed. 12. Under these circumstances, where this petition is pending for considerably long time and respondent No.1 has been contesting for last so many years, it is expected from the petitioner to make compliance of the order of the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /39