JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner was asked to retire by a notice dated 23rd November, 1990 with 3 months pay in lieu of notice. The said order is Annexure-1, since being challenged in this writ petition. Mr. A. R. Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner assails the same on the ground that the retirement age is 60 years but the petitioner has been sought to be retired only after attainment of 58 years on the ground of inefficiency. According to him, there is no material available on the service record to show that the petitioner was inefficient. Thus, the order of non-retention of the petitioner is purely mala fide and has been passed with an ulterior motive. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained.
2. Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. P. K. Singhal on the other hand, contends that the ground for non-retention was in terms of Regulation 3 of Retrenchment and Retirement of Servants of Municipal Boards Regulations, 1965 on the ground of physical unfitness and inefficiency as is apparent from the records, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures-CA-1 and CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. According to him there is a provision to retire a person with 3 months pay in lieu of notice under the said Regulation. Therefore, there having been sufficient materials available in the service record of the petitioner to come to the conclusion as to the inefficiency of the petitioner, a decision having been arrived at by the authority according to their subjective satisfaction, the same, is in fact, the satisfaction which can hardly be interfered by the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel at length.
4. In exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 297 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1960 the Retrenchment and Retirement of Servants of Municipal Boards Regulations. 1965 was made by the Government in super session of earlier regulation. The validity of the said regulation has not been challenged by Mr. Dubey. The said regulation provides in Regulation 3 as follows :
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2) the age of retirement from service of alt servants of Municipal Boards below the age of sixty years on June 30, 1964, or appointed thereafter, shall be sixty years beyond which no one shall ordinarily be retained in the service of the Municipal Boards.
(2) The appointing authority may require a servant to retire on his attaining the age of 58 years on three month's notice, if the servant concerned is physically unfit or is inefficient:
Provided that nothing in this sub-regulation shall apply to those servants of the Municipal Boards who were fifty years of age or above on December 31, 1955.
5. Thus, it appears that those persons employed in the Municipal Boards who are below the age of 60 years on June 30, 1964 or who have been appointed thereafter shall be retired ordinarily on attaining the age of 60 years but no one would be retained ordinarily beyond 60 years. Sub-regulation (2), however, prescribes that a municipal servant, may be required to retire at the age of 58 years on 3 months' notice if he is physically unfit or inefficient with the proviso that this sub-regulation (2) could not apply in respect of the persons who were 50 years of age on December 31, 1955.
6. It is not alleged that the petitioner's age was 50 years or above on 31st December, 1955. Mr. Dubey did not advance any argument to the extent that by reasons of the proviso of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 3, sub-regulation (2) thereof, would not be attracted in the case of the petitioner; Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 3 is very much applicable in the case of the petitioner.
7. Now it is to be seen as to whether there is sufficient material to come to a conclusion that sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 3 could be applied in the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, the impugned order did not disclose any reason excepting that the petitioner was being retired on attainment of 58 years with 3 month's pay in lieu of notice. In the counter-affidavit, the copies of the relevant records have been annexed. Mr. Dubey has not disputed the said records. In the counter-affidavit, Annexures-CA-1 and CA-2 though has been filed but it has not been contended that the records are incorrect.
8. A plain reading of the materials provided in Annexures-CA-1 and CA 2 show that there was recommendation that the petitioner was keeping indifferent health and obtained 285 days of medical leave whereas Annexure-CA-2 shows various adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner. It appears that on occasion, the petitioner was suspended and reinstated and was also subjected to fine. These materials undoubtedly show that they are sufficient to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was in-efficient.
9. The question of satisfaction as to the efficiency of an employee is subjective. It depends on the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority. As such in that event the writ court. in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with such subjective satisfaction unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that such subjective satisfaction has been arrived at without sufficient material or it is perverse and unreasonable or without any material or mala fide is apparent. Neither from the pleadings nor from any other materials no such ingredients have been put forth during the course of arguments by Mr. Dubey, This is not a case fit for this Court to interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority with regard to the decision taken in terms of Regulation 3, sub-regulation (2) of 1965 Regulation on the basis of the materials on record.
10. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.