Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Megh) 7

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Sub/gd Ramesh Lal Tomta & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
WP(C) No. 62 of 2015 with WP(C) No. 65 of 2015, WP(C) No. 79 of 2015, WP(C) No. 102 of 2015, WP(C) No. 123 of 2015, WP(C) No. 158 of 2015, WP(C) No. 159 of 2015, WP(C) No. 212 of 2015, WP(C) No. 242 of 2015, WP(C) No. 253 of 2015, WP(C) No. 267 of 2015, WP(C) No. 270 of 2015, WP(C) No. 335 of 2015, WP(C) No. 15 of 2016, WP(C) No. 66 of 2016, WP(C) No. 68 of 2016, WP(C) No. 69 of 2016
Decided On : 31-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. R. Mazumdar, Adv, Mr. M. Chanda, Adv, Mr. S. D. Upadhaya, Adv, Ms. P. Agarwal, Adv, Mr. D. Sarmah, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Dr. N. Mozika, ASG, with Ms. A. Pradhan, Advocate, for the Respondent

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the compulsory retirement of the petitioners must adhere to the proper procedure and relevant rules, specifically Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. The court also affirmed the entitlement of the petitioners to full back wages and addressed the issue of their employment status during the intervening period.

Headnote:
Compulsory Retirement - Assam Rifles Rules - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 56(j) - Rule 48(1)(b) - Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 - The court found that the impugned orders for compulsory retirement of the petitioners were not in accordance with the proper procedure and the relevant rules. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed reinstatement of the petitioners. The court also addressed the issue of entitlement to back wages and arrears of salary and allowances for the period the petitioners were out of service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, members of the Assam Rifles, were compulsorily retired from service on the ground of being placed in low medical category. The impugned orders for compulsory retirement were challenged on the basis that the proper procedure and relevant rules were not followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders for compulsory retirement were not in accordance with the proper procedure and the relevant rules. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed reinstatement of the petitioners. The court also addressed the issue of entitlement to back wages and arrears of salary and allowances for the period the petitioners were out of service.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proper procedure and relevant rules for compulsory retirement of the petitioners, entitlement to back wages, and arrears of salary and allowances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned orders for compulsory retirement were not in accordance with the proper procedure and the relevant rules, specifically Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. The court also found the petitioners entitled to full back wages and directed the respondent authority to ascertain the petitioners' employment status during the intervening period.
Final Decision: The impugned orders for compulsory retirement were set aside and quashed. The petitioners were directed to be reinstated forthwith, and the payment of arrears of salary and allowances due and payable to them was to be made preferably within 6 months from the date of the court's order.

JUDGMENT

1. This Court vide order dated 15.03.2016, 02.05.2016 and 04.05.2016 vide a common order in related cases being similar and identical in nature, had disposed of the same accordingly.

2. Not being satisfied with the orders of this Court mentioned above, some of the petitioners had approached the Division Bench of this Court by way of appeal and this Court in the Division Bench vide a common order dated 23.10.2017 had disposed of 21 related appeals by remanding the same for reconsideration by this Court.

3. Accordingly, this Court on remand had taken up the case of Ramesh Lal Tomta and 16 others which were pursued by the parties herein.

4. Again, the contentious issue being similar and almost identical inasmuch as it involves the impugned orders passed by the respondent authority whereby the petitioners herein were compulsorily retired from service on completion of 30 (thirty) years of qualifying service in public interest apparently on the ground of being placed in low medical category. The respondent authority has resorted to application of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 48(1) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1972 while affecting the said impugned orders.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved, as pointed above have approached this Court in the first round of litigation and this Court has rejected their prayer. Again, as pointed out above, on appeal, the Division Bench of this Court have thought it fit to remand the matter for reconsideration by this Court and accordingly the contentions raised by the parties is required to be looked into afresh. Therefore, a common order is found convenient to be passed herein.

6. At this juncture, it would be proper to bring out the extract of Rule 48 (1) (b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1972 as well as FR 56(j) to be able to understand the stand taken by the respondent authority on the action taken against the petitioners by compelling them to retire prematurely.

'48. Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service.

(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty years' qualifying service-

(a) ...

(b) he may be required by the Appointing Authority to retire in the public interest.'

Rule 56(j) reads as follows:

'(j). Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:

(i) If he is, in Group 'A' or Group 'B' service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years;

(ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years;'

7. As seen from the above, the petitioners were sought to be compulsorily retired in public interest on the ground that they are assessed as 'low medical category' following a medical examination conducted by the authorities.

8. The fact that the petitioners can be directed to retire on completion of the said qualifying service of thirty years for the reasons stated by the authorities, cannot be a ground for agitation before the writ court as the relevant rules would not prohibit the authorities to take recourse to such action in public interest. However, the grievance of the petitioners herein is that the proper procedure has not been followed.

9. The petitioners being members of the Assam Rifles, they are therefore governed by the provisions of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 as notified. In case of retirement or discharge of subordinate officers on grounds of physical unfitness, the relevant rule would be Rule 26 of the said Assam Rifles Rules. In the impugned orders respectively, nothing has been mentioned that the said Rule 26 was followed at the time of issuance of the same.

10. At this point, it