super-imposed on
Fundamental Rules-Rule 56(c).
Voluntary retirement under FR 56(c)-Consent of the
Government is not necessary to give legal effect ... voluntary retirement once the conditions in FR 56(c) are
fulfilled.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, a District & Sessions Judge, served a notice
on the Government
56 (c) as it stood then.
The Court pointed out that FR 56(b) and FR 56(c) referred to
rights respectively conferred ... State and on the
employee. FR 56(b) conferred a right on government to
compulsorily retire an employee in public interest by giving
him notice
Commissioner Directorate of Ayush
holding that the provisions of FR 56 (1)-A will not be applicable
to the case of the petitioner inasmuch ... Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment) Rules 2004 by Rule 56
(1-g), 56 (1-h) and 56 (1-i) respectively, have been provided
with
necessary to do so
in the public interest. It is unlike FR 56(j) to that ex-
tent. [647G-648B, 649BC]
2.2 Rule ... under the first
proviso to r. 161(1)(a) or under FR 56(j)(1), on which it is
based. Although the words
approved the
premature retirement of the respondent under FR 56(j) and
thereupon the order dated January 28, 1987 was passed
whereby the respondent ... urged before the Tribunal on
behalf of the respondent was that FR 56(j) was not
applicable to members of the ITAT in view Rule
State Government
to pay all his retirement benefits admissible under FR 56.
During the pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition ... State Government and rejected his request to accept
voluntary retirement under FR 56 and directed the State
7
Government to reconsider the respondent
provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (j) [hereinafter
referred to as 'FR 56 (j)'], applicable to the central government
employees are not applicable ... remove the petitioner from the
post in question, provisions of FR 56 (j) has been applied and the
petitioner compulsorily retired. Apart from contending that
issued the impugned order effecting compulsory retirement of the applicant under FR 56(j)(i). The applicant submitted his representation to the Chairman of Board ... sustainable in the eye of law and as per provisions of FR 56(j) the respondents have failed to consider the entire service record
mean that the DDA could not exercise the power under FR 56(j)(i). The DDA denies the averment of the petitioner that it could ... have resorted to the power under FR 56 only when the official concerned attained 50 years, and not later. The petitioner had completed 50 years
case of Fundamental Rule
56(j) (for short “FR 56(j)”). Additionally, reliance is placed on the
exposition of this Court in Union of India ... power to
retire compulsorily could be exercised in accordance with the FR 56(j)
only.
49. The contentions of the appellant find an answer
