The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the petitioner's failure to make a representation within the specified time ordinarily disentitled him to challenge the premature retirement, the court permitted the petitioner to make a representation considering the peculiar facts of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 13th March, 2012 issued under Clause 1(b) of Rule 48 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) thereby, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from services.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner had been employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the “CISF”) and at the relevant point of time was posted at CISF Unit, Kolkata Port Trust.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that he was appointed on 30th December, 1981. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the month of May, 2002. The petitioner claims that he has a specially abled daughter and for her education he had been residing at his quarters in Taratala. It is for his daughter’s education that he had requested that he be retained in Kolkata and had also requested for cancellation of the order of his transfer from Durgapore to Assam. Since, his request was not adhered to he was constrained to move a writ petition which was registered as CO. No 13470 W of 1996. On contested hearing a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 18th September 1996, was, inter alia, pleased to allow the writ petition, thereby, quashing the order of transfer dated 6th August 1996. Records revealed that the petitioner was constrained to move yet another writ petition which was registered as WP no. 21449 (W) of 2011. By an order 22nd December 2011, a coordinate bench of this Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the case of the specially abled child of the petitioner had permitted the petitioner to make a substantive representation to the respondent no. 3 for changing the location of his transferred posting from Mejia to Durgapur taking into consideration the Central Government circular dated 5th January 1993.

4. The petitioner claims that by order dated 25th February 2012, the senior commandant had asked the petitioner to submit an application for regularization of the period for which the petitioner was not taken on duty in spite of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court. Subsequently, thereafter, by an order dated 13th March 2012 the Senior Commandant of the Unit prematurely, retired the petitioner from services.

5. The petitioner questions the aforesaid order of premature retirement, inter alia, on the ground that the Deputy Inspector General had no authority in law to issue the order of prematurely retiring him. By drawing attention of this Court to the instructions regarding the premature retirement of Central Government servants under Appendix-5 of the said Rules, he submits that at any time after a Government servant completes 30 years of qualifying service, he may be retired from the services on the basis of “consolidated instructions” regarding premature retirement of Central Government servants as available in Appendix-5 thereof. Further by referring to the aforesaid Appendix-5, he submits that not only the criteria but procedure and guidelines have also been framed, which are required to be followed while compulsorily retiring a Government servant. A Government servant may be retired on the basis of the recommendations of the committee constituted for the said purpose. While referring to Annexure-II of Appendix-5 of the said Rules, he submits that the petitioner was a non-gazetted officer, serving under Ministry/Department and as such the Head of the Department or the Appointing Authority, whosoever is higher would be the Chairman, and another Senior Officer nominated by the Government/appropriate Higher Authority who does not exercise direct or immediate control or supervision over the officers being screened, as member, should be part of the Review Committee. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector General is not the Head of the Department and as such could not have taken the decision as regards the petitioner, for