KALYAN RAI SURANA
Nawal Kishore Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Heard Mr. T.N. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein 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 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 28/2/1987 and was serving in 18 Bn., Assam Rifles. In due course, he was promoted as Havildar (GD). It was not in dispute that the petitioner is medically fit and is in SHAPE-I category. On 6/8/2016, the Commandant 18 Bn., Assam Rifles had issued a show-cause notice to inform the petitioner he would be completing 30 (thirty) years of qualifying
A.K. Praipak v. Union of India
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District Medical Officer
Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Ors.
K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank of India and Ors.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
Posts and Telegraphs Board and Ors. Vs. C.S.N. Murthy
Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Babu Lal Jangir
Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. and Ors. Vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 69
State Bank of Orissa and Ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Das
State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel
State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust
State of Punjab Vs. Gurdas Singh
State of U.P. v. Shyam Lal Sharma
Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Tikendra Singh Vs. The Union of India and Ors.
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.