KALYAN RAI SURANA
Jeewan Singh S/O Lt. Mahant Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs North Block New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner therein was compulsorily retired on completion of 30 years of service and upon attaining the age of 55 years. The legality of the orders by which the petitioner was respectively retired, is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to allow him to continue in service up to the normal age of superannuation, i.e. up to 60 years. It may be mentioned that by virtue of interim order passed in the writ petition, the operation of the impugned order was suspended/ kept in abeyance.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled as Rifleman (General Duty) on 20.12.1987 and was serving in 33 Bn., Assam Rifles, C/O 99 APO. In due course, he was promoted as Havildar (GD) on 16.12.2009. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is medically fit and is in SHAPE-I category. On 08.08.2016, from the office of the C
A.K. Praipak v. Union of India
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India & Ors.
Arun Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr.
Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada
Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors.
K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank of India & Ors.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
Posts & Telegraphs Board & Ors. v. C.S.N. Murthy
Posts and Telegraphs Board vs. C.S.N. Murthy
Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Babu Lal Jangir
Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 69
State Bank of Orissa & Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das
State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel
State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust
State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Bihari Lal
State of U.P. v. Shyam Lal Sharma
Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Tikendra Singh v. The Union of India & Ors.
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain
Point of Law : Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment.
Point of Law : Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment.
Point of Law :Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment.
Point of Law : Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment.
The order of compulsory retirement of a judicial officer under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, is not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or mala fide if it is ....
Uncommunicated adverse remarks in ACRs can be considered for compulsory retirement under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.