JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. B. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr. H. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Assam.

2. The question involved in the instant writ petitions is as to whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the authority concerned under FR 56(b) of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules as applicable to the State of Assam insofar as compulsorily retiring the petitioner is in public interest. For ascertaining the said dispute, it would be relevant to take note of the facts leading to the filing of both the writ petitions.

3. The petitioner herein was initially appointed in the year 1985 in the post of Junior Assistant under the Government of Assam in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Maibang in the District of Dima Hasao. Thereupon, the petitioner was promoted to the Post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. the date of joining i.e. on 14.07.2004. From a perusal of the writ petitions, it further transpires that on 13.12.2019, a communication was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao i.e. the respondent No.2 herein wherein it was mentioned that in terms with the order dated 29.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner was asked to go for voluntary retirement due to constant negligence of Government duties and irregularity in attending office. It was further mentioned that as per the norms, the petitioner would be released after 3 (three) months w.e.f. 01.12.2019. It further appears that the petitioner on 21.12.2019 submitted an application intimating the respondent No.2 that she has not been able to attend her duties regularly as she was in her sick bed suffering from Chronic Liver Disease and Nephropathy and was admitted in the Haflong Civil Hospital on 24.11.2019 and got discharged on 03.12.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was again admitted for two days i.e. 13.12.2019 and 14.12.2019 for blood transfusion. It was also mentioned in the said application that the doctor of the petitioner adviced her for bed rest and proper medical attention. It further appears that on 26.12.2019, the respondent No.2 granted 30 days Earned Leave w.e.f. 01.11.2019 to 30.11.2019. It was further mentioned in the said order that the petitioner is likely to return to the post from which she proceeded on leave after its expiry and she would have continued to hold the post but for her proceeding on leave.

4. It is also relevant to take note of that on 13.12.2019 i.e. on the very day on which the communication was issued by the Deputy Commissioner as referred to hereinabove thereby directing the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation stating inter alia that the same was not acceptable to the petitioner and requested the respondent No.2 to reconsider the same. To the said communication, the petitioner has also enclosed various medical documents. It further appears that on 03.02.2020, there is another order passed by the Deputy Commissioner paramateria to the contents of the communication dated 26.12.2019. Subsequent thereto, on 29.02.2020, the petitioner was released from service on the basis of the communication dated 13.12.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner on account of voluntary retirement by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Maibang i.e. the respondent No.3 herein. The petitioner immediately thereafter submitted a communication dated 04.03.2020 to the respondent No.3 seeking the status report on the matter of her release from the service from the post of Senior Assistant on voluntary retirement. The copy of the said communication was also forwarded to the respondent No.2. On the same date, the petitioner has also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the respondent No.3 seeking various information. The first information so sought for was as to whether the petitioner had applied for voluntary retirement from service during her service p