Gauhati High Court: The single bench of Michael Zothankhuma, J., disposed of the writ petition and held that the State cannot prematurely retire a subordinate officer from service on the ground of his low medical categorization without applying the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010.
A writ petition was filed by the petitioner for setting aside an impugned order dated 15-10-2017, whereby the petitioner had been made to prematurely retire with effect from 01-02-2018, on completion of 30 years of qualifying service, by invoking Rule 48 (1) (b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner was serving as a Havildar (GD) in the 42 Assam Rifles Battalion.
The Bench relied on the judgment given in the case of Prodip Kumar Halo v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 2061 and held that the State, in the guise of applying Rule 48 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1972 or 56 (j) cannot retire a person due to low medical categorization, without first following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010.Therefore, the Bench set aside the impugned order.
Further the Bench directed the State to reinstate the petitioner into service and to examine the medical fitness of the petitioner and take further steps, if necessary, by applying Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010.
[Gopal Biswakarma v Union of India, WP(C)/264/2018, decided on- 18-07-2022]
Appearances before the Court
Advocate for the Petitioner: R. Ali, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: ASSTT.S.G.I.
