JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, Mr. A. Ahmed, Ms. S. Bora, the learned counsels for the writ petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, Mr. K.K. Parasar, Mr. S.S. Roy, Mr. B. Sarma, Mr. S.K. Medhi, Mr. D.C. Borah and Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned CGCs for the Union of India.

2. The subject matter in all the writ petitions being identical, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The matters relate to the premature retirement of the petitioners in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules, 1972) and Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. Though some of the impugned orders in the various petitions show that the premature retirement of the petitioners has been done either by way of Rule 48(1)(b) of the Pension Rules, 1972 or FR 56(j), the process undertaken by the respondents for prematurely retiring the petitioners have been done by applying both Rule 48(1)(b) and FR 560).

4. The facts in W(C) No. 5774/2017 are being referred to for disposal of all the writ petitions. The petitioner, who is a Havilder Nursing Assistant in the Assam Rifles in WP(C) No. 5774/2017 is aggrieved by the Order dated 10.08.2017, issued in exercise of Rule 48(1)(b) of the Pension Rules, 1972, by which the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service w.e.f. 01.11.2017. The petitioner's counsel submits that the impugned Order dated 10.08.2017, by which the petitioner has been given notice that he will be prematurely retired from service w.e.f. 01.11.2017 has to be set aside, inasmuch as, the said order, though purportedly retiring the petitioner on grounds of public interest, has actually prematurely retired the petitioner due to his low medical category of SHAPE-II.

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that a Government servant, who has completed 30 years of qualifying service, may be retired by the authority in public interest as per Rule 48(1) (b) of the Pension Rules or if the Government servant has attained the age of 50 years as per Clause (i) or 55 years as per Clause (ii) of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. However, while invoking Rule 48(1) (b)/FR 56(j), an opinion has to be formed by the authorities that it is in public interest to do so, which would require the respondents to come to a finding that the Government servant's integrity was doubtful or he was found to be ineffective in his service. He submits that the petitioner has however been prematurely retired on the ground of having low medical category, which in fact should have attracted Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. He submits that the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on grounds of his low medical category, by applying Rule 48(1)(b) of the Pension Rules is not in consonance with the Order dated 15.06.2016 passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being, WP(C) No. 1250/2015, Sunil Kumar Shahi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

He also submits that there are many Assam Rifles personnel who have completed 30 years of service and/or have completed 50 years of age, who are still being retained in service, though their medical category is not SHAPE-1. In this regard, he has relied upon the "Nomino Roll of Permanent Low Medical Category Persons in respect of 11 Assam Rifles for the month of December, 2020" issued by the respondents.

6. The counsels for the respondents submit that the petitioner has a low medical category, i.e. SHAPE-II and as such, the premature retirement of the petitioner in terms of Rule 48(1) (b) of the Pension Rules, 1972 was justified. They also submit that the members of the Armed Forces should be in the medical category SHAPE-I and if they do not have the medical category SHAPE-I, their premature retirement would be in public interest.

The counsels for the respondents also submit that the High Court of Meghalaya has upheld the premature retirement orders issued by th