ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A): By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-

“a. Quash and set aside the Impugned Orders dated 21.06.2016 and 14.03.2017; (2) b. Respondents be directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits;

c.

pass any other relief that this Hon'ble Tribunal may consider fit in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as indicated in the OA are that on 07.01.1982, the applicant joined the respondents as Assistant. Thereafter, on 30.10.1987, the applicant was promoted as Section Officer. The applicant was further promoted as Under Secretary on 01.08.1999 and thereafter, on 14.11.2012, was further promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary, the post from which she has been compulsory retired, under FR 56(j).

3. On 06/12.05.2016, Respondent No.1 certified that there is no vigilance case either pending or being contemplated against the applicant. It was further clarified that no major/minor penalty disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the applicant.

4. On 13.06.2016, Respondent No.2-DOP&T issued Select List, for inclusion of eligible Selection Grade officers in the CSS Senior Selection Grade (Director) for the select list 2016, to be considered for promotion from the Selection Grade i.e. Deputy Secretary to the Senior Selection Grade i.e. Director. (3) The name of the applicant was shown at Serial Number 50, but the applicant was not considered and her case was deferred on the ground that the name of the applicant has been proposed for compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) and the proposal is lying with the Hon'ble Minister for State, DoPT.

5. On 21.06.2016, Respondent No.2 issued impugned order, ordering compulsory retirement of the applicant from service under FR 56(j). On 28.07.2016, applicant made representation to Respondent No.2 requesting the respondent to allow the applicant to continue in service. On 14.03.2017, respondent No.2, vide the present impugned Order, rejected the representation of the applicant and upheld the decision of compulsory retirement of the applicant. On 05.04.2017, the applicant again made a representation to the Hon’ble Minister, DOP&T, requesting that the applicant may be reinstated in service by setting aside OM dated 21.06.2016. On 14.07.2017 also, Minister of State for Agriculture & Farmers Welfare and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India through its letter addressed to Respondent No.2 recommended the case of the applicant for sympathetic consideration and for restoration of her service, but to no avail.

(4)

6. It is submitted that after having put in about 34 years of unblemished service coupled with utmost integrity, the applicant has been compulsorily retired under FR 56 (j) with effect from 21.06.2016. It is further submitted that the action of Respondent No.1 is not only perverse and arbitrary but is also is devoid of merits. All APARs for the last five years of the applicant have been consistently assessed as ‘Outstanding’. The Additional Secretary was the Reporting Officer and Secretary was the Reviewing Officers of the applicant. Both these officers assessed the applicant as ‘Outstanding’ in the APARs and had also certified her integrity.

After having been assessed consistently as ‘Outstanding’ for the last five years there is no justification for the impugned compulsory retirement.

7. The necessary guidelines for compulsory retirement have been issued by DOPT vide their ON No. 25013/1/2013- Estt (A) dated 21.03.2014. Para 3 of the ON reads as under:

"5. The criteria to be followed by the Committee making their recommendations would be as follows:-

(a) Government employees whose integrity is doubtful will be retired.

(b) Government employees who are found to be ineffective will also be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such employee should be the (5) fitness/compet