Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Satish Kumar Singh – Respondent
Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned Advocate General assisted by Smt. Binita Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar and Mr. Prabhu Nath Pathak, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents.
2. All the five writ petitioners-respondents herein having been compulsorily retired by a common order contained in notification dated 18.6.2020 under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar preferred separate writ applications, all having been allowed, the orders have been challenged in appeal by the State of Bihar.
3. CWJC no.407 of 2021 preferred by Shyam Sundar Sharma was allowed vide judgment dated 29.8.2023. The other writ applications i.e. CWJC no.9776 of 2020 filed by Satish Kumar Singh, CWJC no.9779 of 2020 filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, CWJC no.3047 of 2021 filed by Kumar Rajesh and CWJC no.3727 of 2021 filed by Praveen Pandit were all allowed on the ground of similarity/parity with CWJC no.407 of 2021, by judgment dated 12.10.2023 against which separate four appeals have been preferred by the State of Bihar. All the five appeals filed against the orders passed in the writ petitions have been taken up to
Compulsory retirement under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code does not require prior notice or a charge memo, and is not considered punitive, thus principles of natural justice do not apply.
Point of Law : Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an emp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such order....
Point of Law : Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, con....
Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not require a hearing under Article 311; it is based on the government's subjective satisfaction regarding public interest.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
