Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Ex Constable No. 941330734, Alauddin Ahmed, S/o Ajnur Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel submitted that he has been specifically instructed by Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC to appear today in the instant matter. It is further relevant to take note of that this matter was heard by this Court on 26.11.2024, 16.12.2024 as well as on 09.01.2025 wherein Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC was heard.
3. Today, the matter was only fixed taking into account that Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the counsel for the petitioner pursuant to the observations so made in the order dated 09.01.2025 sought to place before this Court certain judgments.
4. Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the learned counsel in that regard has placed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Others. Vs. State of Kerala & Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 . Taking into that the matter has been duly heard, this Court takes up the instant writ petition for final disposal.
5. The dispute involved in the instant petition pertains to a challenge being made to the order date
Retrospective penalties for compulsory retirement are impermissible and must align with the order date past which no previous penalty exists.
An employee who successfully contests compulsory retirement is entitled to full benefits, including service time lost during the retirement, highlighting the judicial emphasis on proportionality in d....
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....
Period of service excluded due to unjust compulsory retirement must be counted for benefits upon reinstatement as per judicial directives, ensuring equitable treatment for employees.
The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant under FR 56(j) must be made in public interest, and judicial scrutiny is limited to cases of mala fide exercise of power or lack of evidence. ....
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....
Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and serves public interest by weeding out ineffective employees, validated by a consistent record of penalties.
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.
The main legal point established is that an employee is entitled to pension and post-retiral benefits as per the initial order of compulsory retirement, and subsequent amendments denying such benefit....
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
