WP(C) No. 94 of 2016. Case: Karam Chand Vs The Union of India and Ors.. Meghalaya High Court

Case NumberWP(C) No. 94 of 2016
Party NameKaram Chand Vs The Union of India and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: A. Chakravarty, Adv. and For Respondents: R. Paul, Adv.
JudgesS. R. Sen, J.
IssueArmy Act, 1950 - Section 8
Judgement DateMarch 29, 2016
CourtMeghalaya High Court

Judgment:

S. R. Sen, J.

  1. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:

    "In exercise of powers under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondent authorities have issued an Order dated 27.07.2015 directing the petitioner to compulsory retire from service on completion of 30 years of service w.e.f. 31st April, 2016 on the ground that review board has not approved further retention in service. Prima facie the said review board is not medical review board as the next date of medical review as per latest medical board proceedings is due to be held on 23.05.2017. However, even prior to that in colourable exercise of powers under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petitioner is directed to be retired from service. The petitioner as on April, 2016 will have around more than 11 years service left in his service career. It is also categorically stated that the petitioner has never applied for premature retirement before the higher authorities nor there has been any service review of the petitioner's service. No copy of service review board has been communicated to the petitioner. The impugned order of compulsory retirement is in the form of Notice as well as final order which is prima facie illegal. No opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner while considering the service records of the petitioner, if any conducted by the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition".

  2. Heard Mr. A. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who submits that this instant writ petition is covered by a common judgment and order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 12 of 2015 and others dated 15.03.2016 and he further contended that, similar judgment and order can be passed in this instant writ petition.

  3. Mr. K. Paul, learned CGC is not present. However, his junior Ms. R. Paul, learned counsel appeared on his behalf.

  4. For ready reference the contents of the said common judgment and order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 12 of 2015 and others dated 15.03.2016 is reproduced herein below:

    "5. To answer the issues raised by the petitioners as well as the respondents, let me first look into Rule 48 (1) (a) and Rule 48 (1) (b) under the heading of "Regulation of Amounts of Pensions" at Chapter-VII or otherwise, it may be called the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 48 (1) (a) and Rule 48 (1) (b) made a provision for retirement on completion of 30(thirty) years of qualifying service. For easy reference the said Rule 48 (1) (a)...

To continue reading

Request your trial