WP(C) No. 61 of 2016. Case: Uttam Kumar Singha Vs The Union of India and Ors.. Meghalaya High Court
| Case Number | WP(C) No. 61 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P. Agarwal, Adv. and For Respondents: K. Paul, C.G.C. |
| Judges | S. R. Sen, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | April 20, 2016 |
| Court | Meghalaya High Court |
Judgment:
S. R. Sen, J.
-
The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:
"The respondent authorities have issued an Order dated 28.01.2016 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f., 01st May, 2016 in purported exercise of powers under FR 56(j) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner has 6 years of service left before he attains the age of superannuation. Under the Assam Rifles Medical Examination (Categorization and Invalidation) Rules, 1988, personnel of Assam Rifles cannot be made to compulsorily retire on medical grounds unless he is declared P-4 or P-5 in a Medical Board Proceedings and Medical Invalidation Board is constituted for said purpose. There is nothing under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules or in Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, that personnel can be made to compulsorily retire on "medical grounds". Rather under the Fundamental Rules or CCS (Pension) Rules, the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner has to be considered before the petitioner can be made to compulsorily retire. Prima facie there has been no consideration of the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner before proceeding arbitrarily under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 to axe the service of the petitioner nor the Assam Rifles Medical Examination (Categorisation and Invalidation) Rules, 1988 has been followed by the respondent authorities. Mere issuance of medical certificate declaring the petitioner to be unfit for service in absence of specialist medical opinion cannot be a valid ground for compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service "in absence" of any Release Medical Invalidation Board who is otherwise fit to perform sedentary/non-combat duties in the unit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition".
-
Heard Ms. P. Agarwal, 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 she further contended that, similar judgment and order can be passed in this instant writ petition.
-
Mr. K. Paul, learned CGC appeared on behalf of the respondents.
-
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial