WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 JUDGMENT & ORDER This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 126(SH)/2007 filed by the appellant as petitioner before this Court. The appellant in the writ petition had prayed for following relief amongst others:- (i) a writ in the nature of certiorari and mendacious shall not be issued for calling the records pertaining to medical category and compulsory retirement of the petitioner and for setting aside and quashing the impugned Order dated Ist July, 2002 and 18 th November ,2003. (ii) a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not issued after quashing the impugned Order of dismissal, directing the respondents reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages. (iii) to direct the respondents to declare the petitioner in SHAPE-I category and be considered for promotion as Deputy Commandant from the date of his batch mates had been promoted in the year 1998 with grant of all consequential benefits. 2. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing thus:- “for the forgoing reason and having considered the basis on which the decision was taken to prematurely retire the petitioner from service and the decision of the Supreme Court
3 in Umedbhai M. Patel(supra), I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.” 3. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred this appeal assailing the judgment dated 29.7.2010 on two fold arguments -- (i) That the learned Single Judge did not at all consider the case of the appellant on his prayer for promotion and recorded no finding at all. (ii) That the decision holding premature retirement of appellant as justified was bad in law in fact. 4. We have heard learned counsel Mr.B.Bhattacharjee for the appellant and learned CGC, Mr.S.C.Shyam for the respondents . 5. Let us see whether the issue of premature retirement of the appellant taken by the respondents and upheld by learned Single Judge, is justified or not. The appellant has been put to compulsory retirement as per provision prescribed in FR 56 (J). For ready reference the provision is reproduced as under:- “(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
Page 1: IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COU
Page 5 and 6: INTERNAL 6. MS Branch 7. Record Bra
Page 7 and 8: 7 also been made known to the petit
Page 9 and 10: 9 regarding that prayer of the appe
Page 11 and 12: 11 doubt. The internal assessment m
Page 13: 13 petitioner was fit for duties no

WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?