K.SELVARAJ Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, NEW DELHI AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 29-6-2000 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired with immediate effect after attaining the age of 50 years on 31-5- 1999 and the order dated 29-10-2000 (Annexure P/2), whereby his representation against the impugned order dated 29-6- 2000 was rejected by the respondent No.1.
(2.)The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force (for short, "CISF") in the year 1975 as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive). In the year 1986 he was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive). Further, he was promoted to the post of Inspector (Executive) in the year 1993. The petitioner had received eight cash awards and thirteen commendation for various activities. There was no adverse entry in his service record as nothing was communicated to him. A charge-sheet was issued in the year 1985, resulting into imposition of removal from service on 3-2-1986, the same was set aside by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 1659 of 1986. The imposition of withholding of one increment in the year 1996 was also quashed in appeal by the Commandant V.S.C.C., Thumba. The petitioner received the impugned order dated 29-6-2000 compulsorily retiring him under the provisions of the Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules (for Short, "FR"), by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.1. The same was rejected by the respondent No.1 under the signature of Assistant Inspector General/Estt. Thus, this petition impugning the above stated orders.
(3.)Mr. P.S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the provisions of Rule 56 (j) of FR applies to the Government servants and not to the members of the armed forces as the petitioner is a member of CSIF which came into force under the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act, 1968). Under the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Act, 1968 CISF would constitute as an armed force of the Union. In exercise of the power under the Act, 1968, Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short, "the Rules 1969") were framed. There is no provision for premature retirement on attaining the age of 50 years under the Act, 1968 and the Rules 1969. The petitioner, being holder of the post of Inspector, comes in the grade "Group -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. 60.00 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. 6500.00 - 9000.00. 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.