Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Lekha Priya Saikia W/o. Sri Indra Borgohain – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
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 wi
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 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 ....
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....
Point of Law : Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment.
The assessment of an employee's entire service record is crucial for deciding on compulsory retirement, and the order must be based on proper grounds and subjective satisfaction of the authority.
Point of Law : Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment.
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.
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
