Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Sushil Kumar Hedau Son Of Late Shri Banshi Lal Hedau – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Order :
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.)
1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4/10/2017 issued by the Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, State of Chhattisgarh. By the said order, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired stating that he has completed 20 years of service as on 21/07/2013, hence as per Sub Rule (1) of Clause (b) of Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 in the public interest, the petitioner is being compulsorily retired with effect from 4/10/2017 with the approval of the State Government. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred this petition with the following reliefs:-
“(i)This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the Copy of impugned order Dated 04.10.2017 (P/1) issued by Director, Directorate Of Geology & Mining, State of C.G. and to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and further to count the services of the petitioner on continuous basis;
(ii)This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner's salary for inter-regnum period along-with interest;
(iii)This Hon'ble Court may-kindly be pleased to issue any other order or orders, writ o
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.
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....
The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant under FR 56(j) must be made in public interest, and judicial scrutiny is limited to cases of mala fide exercise of power or lack of evidence. ....
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 court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in compulsory retirement cases, ruling that arbitrary actions without substantial evidence are impermissible.
Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and serves public interest by weeding out ineffective employees, validated by a consistent record of penalties.
Principles governing the grant of certain benefits i.e. pay scales and other benefits are different than the assessment of service record of the petitioner to assess the suitability of the petitioner....
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
