Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

-C Non-gazetted", therefore, the provision of sub-clause

(ii) of FR 56 (j) would be applicable. Grade -C employees may be retired prematurely after attaining the age of 55 years. It appears that the petitioner has been classified as Grade -B., after notification dated 20-4-1998 (Annexure P/5) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions came into force which provides for classification of the posts in respect of Central Civil posts. The petitioner is a promotee and has not entered into Group - B service directly. Under the Central Government Group Insurance Saving Fund (CGGISF) the petitioner is a subscriber under Group - C and he was paying his contribution at the rate of Rs.60/- per month (Annexure P/6). The petitioner could have been considered for compulsory retirement only after he attains the age of 55 years. The petitioner could have been retired only in public interest, if his service records were bad and his integrity was doubtful. There was no adverse entry in the entire service of the petitioner. Even if a classification of the Civil posts are made applicable to the members of CISF, the petitioner would fall in Group-C as the petitioner was working at that time on the pay scale of Rs.6500/- - 9000/-. Even if the petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of 50 years, the review must be done six months before the Government servant attains the age of 50/55 years, whichever is earlier. The date of birth of the petitioner is 1-6-1949. The petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 31-5-1999 and the impugned order was passed on 29-6-2000. In case of the petitioner, his service record reviewed after he attained the age of 50 years which is not permissible under law. The respondents in their additional reply dated 16-6-2008 have admitted that the review committee to consider the case of the petitioner was held on 23-6-2000 after the petitioner crossed the age of 51 years as the petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 31-5- 1999. The petitioner had received five very good entries, 2 good entries and 2 average entries in his last ten years confidential reports. The petitioner was further granted promotion in the year 1993 within a period of seven years from the date of the order. The petitioner was granted very good in the ACR for the year 2000. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order deserves to be quashed on account of the fact that the orders are not in conformity with the provisions of law.

4) Per contra, Shri S.K. Beriwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner attained the age 50 years on 31-5-1999 when he was holding the post of Inspector. The post of Inspector in the force including CISF has been classified as "General Central Services Group `B' Non-Gazetted" as notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 18-5-1999 with effect from 10-10-1997. This was notified in the Gazette on 25-1-2000 (Annexure R/2). The respondents framed guidelines to strengthen the administration on 16-8-1999 (Annexure R/3), wherein it was stated that in case of Inspectors of CISF, the review under FR 56 (j) is required to adjudge their suitability for further continuance in service or otherwise after completion of 30 years of qualifying service on the basis of entire service records including records of the preceding five years. The case of the petitioner was considered after he attained the age of 50 years for premature retirement with effect from 4-7-2000. Rule 70 of the CISF Rules, 1969 stipulates that the supervisory officers and members of the Force shall, in respect of all other matters regarding conditions of service for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in these rules, be governed by the rules and order for the time being applicable to officers holding corresponding posts in the Central Government in respect of such matters. Learned counsel further submits that FR 56 (j) (i) provides that if the employee is in Group A or B service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered government service before attaining the age of 35 years, he, in public interest, may be prematurely retired after attaining the age of 50 years. Thus, the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that services of the petitioner ought to have been reviewed on attaining the age of 55 years, is misconceived. The petitioner joined service in CISF as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) on 24-3-1975. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector in the year 1993. The petitioner during his service career was punished as many as seven times for his various acts, omissions and misconducts, the details of which are as under:

Apart from the above, during the entire service career, 12 annual confidential reports of the petitioner were found average.;

1975 to 1983-average, 1994-very good, 1995- good, 1996- average.

1997- average, 1998 (1.1.1998 to 30.4.1981) -average, 1998 (1.5.1998 to 31.5.1981)-non-initiation certificate and 1998 (.1.6.1998 to 31.12.1998) -very good.

5) The petitioner was found negligent on duties. The petitioner was removed from service for serious mis-conduct, later on removal order was quashed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.1885/87 and the petitioner was re- instated in service. The representation of the petitioner was considered and it was found that premature retirement of the petitioner from service in public interest was in accordance with the provisions of FR 56 (j). Subscription towards Group Insurance Savings has nothing to do with classification of CISF Inspectors as they fall under category of "Group-B Non-Gazetted Central Services". The petitioner was prematurely retired on the basis of his service record and on the ground of ineffectiveness, and not as a measure of punishment.

(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."

27) FR 56 (j) contemplates premature retirement after an employee in Group `A' or Group `B' has attained the age of 50 years when he has entered into service before attaining the age of 35 years. In the present case, the case of the petitioner was considered after attaining the age of 50 years and there is no condition in FR 56 (j) that review should be done six months before the Government servant attains the age of 50 years. The common thread running into the decisions cited above clearly shows that, if a conduct of a Government employee becomes unbecoming, in the public interest or obstructs the efficiency of public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsory retire such an employee in public interest. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that, there was any malafide in the order or the order was not in public interest or it was for collateral purpose. Thus, I am constrained to hold that the impugned order retiring the petitioner prematurely is bona fide and in public interest.