Raghu Nath Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 January, 2000
7. There is merit in these submissions of Shri Sant Lal. It is clear that by holding that applicants premature retirement under the proviso of FR 56(j) were not tenable, since the provisions of that rule had not been judiciously invoked, applicant's case falls within the proviso to FR 56(jj)(i) cited above. The ruling in Ravoof's case (supra) relied upon by Shri Bansal was with respect to the specific guidelines dated 15.11.75 issued by the Railway Board to General Managers of all Indian Railways, but this is a case of the Indian Postal Department where those guidelines have no application.