High Court · 2025 on 07 Jul 2025

Judgment

1. This petition is directed against order dated 11.09.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application (OA) No. 191 of 2021, whereby the OA filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The OA was filed inter alia seeking to question the validity of orders dated 28.01.2021, 01.01.2021 & 03.03.2020 and a direction was sought to the respondents to reconsider the compassionate appointment of the petitioner.

3. The father of the petitioner was posted as MTS. He had rendered 32 years of service. The Review Committee constituted by the respondents made recommendation based on which order dated

03.03.2020 was passed by which, under the provisions of FR 56(j), the petitioner's father was retired from service.

4. Due to ailments, father of the petitioner died on 17.04.2020. The petitioner made representation seeking grant of compassionate appointment on which order dated 01.01.2021 was passed rejecting the same indicating that after retirement under FR 56(j), there is no provision for compassionate appointment. An order of similar nature was again passed on 28.01.2021. Feeling aggrieved the OA was filed.

5. In the OA, challenge was laid seeking to take advantage of incorrect indication in the orders rejecting the representation that after ‘VRS under FR 56(j)', no compassionate appointment can be granted. The claim was that no application was made by the petitioner's father for grant of Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) and as such, 2 the respondents could have only medically de-categorized him, entitling the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

6. Further plea was raised regarding lack of opportunity to defend his case before passing of the order dated 03.03.2020 and that the petitioner was eligible for grant of compassionate appointment.

7. The Tribunal, by the order impugned, after referring to the order dated 03.03.2020, came to the conclusion that the same was passed under the provisions of FR 56(j) and in terms of the said provision, petitioner’s father was given three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice.

8. The Tribunal further referred to the provisions of Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, 'the Rules, 1972'), and found that under the said Rules as well, after completing 30 years of qualifying service, the retirement can be given and the employee would be entitled to retiral benefits and consequently dismissed the OA. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

9. Submissions have been made that the respondents have invoked the provisions of Rule 48 of the Rules, 1972, which contemplate a notice, however, no such notice was given to the petitioner's father and, therefore, the order dated 03.03.2020 is bad.

10. Further submissions were made based on the indication made in reply to the OA that father of the petitioner was 'compulsorily retired' w.e.f. 03.03.2020 and, therefore, as compulsory retirement is one of the major penalties, the same could not have been imposed without following the procedure prescribed under the the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the Rules of 1965') and, therefore, the order is bad.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order impugned.

12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 3

13. A perusal of the order dated 03.03.2020 reveals that after referring to the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose, it was specifically ordered that father of the petitioner, in terms of provisions under FR 56(j), be retired with immediate effect. He was also paid three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of notice period of three months, as admissible under the said FR. The exercise of power while passing the order dated 03.03.2020 is very specific i.e. under FR 56(j). The Tribunal has noticed the opinion of the Review Committee and the provisions of FR 56(j), which only contemplate either a notice of three months or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.

14. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was paid pay and allowances for a period of three months and as such, the provisions of Rule 56(j) stands complied with.

15. So far as reliance placed on provisions of Rule 48 of the Rules, 1972 is concerned, the submission made that the same requires issuance of notice, has been noticed only for rejection. Besides the fact that though the respondents had option either to invoke FR 56(j) or Rule 48 of the Rules, 1972, as the order dated 03.03.2020 was passed under FR 56(j) and as such, Rule 48 of the Rules, 1972 has no relevance.

16. Relevant part of Rule 48 of the Rules, 1972 reads as under: “48. Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service.-(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty years qualifying service- (a) he may retire from service; or (b) he may be required by the appointing authority to retire in the public interest, and in the case of such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension : Provided that- (a) a Government servant shall give a notice in writing to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire; and (b) the appointing authority may also give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the public interest or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.” 4

17. A perusal of the said Rule would reveal that the same contemplates retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service both at the instance of the employee or the employer, which is evident from clauses (a) & (b) respectively and the proviso (a) requires the Government servant in case he seeks to retire from service, to give a notice in writing at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire and in so far as the exercise of power by the appointing authority is concerned, proviso (b) provides giving of a notice in writing by the appointing authority to the Government servant three months before the date on which he is required to retire or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.

18. The very fact that in the present case admittedly three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice has been paid, even under the provisions of Rule 48 of the Rules, 1972, it cannot be said that there is any violation.

19. Submissions made apparently based on proviso (a), which only pertains to a case where the Government servant himself seeks retirement, is totally misplaced.

20. So far as the submission made pertaining to the respondents having imposed punishment of compulsory retirement without following the procedure of the Rules of 1965 is concerned, raising of the plea based on an incorrect assertion made in the reply to the OA indicating the retirement in terms of FR 56(j) as compulsory retirement, cannot and does not alter the fact situation and in view thereof, no case is made out for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal on that count also.

21. The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Sandeep (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad