Judgment:
1. The applicant challenges the order of compulsory retirement upon a review under FR-56(j).
2. The facts are not in dispute and lie in a short compass. The applicant joined service in Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO for short) in 1974 as Tradesman 'B'. He was promoted from time to time to the grades of Tradesman 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'. He was promoted to the grade of Tradesman 'G', which is in Group-B cadre, in 1993. The respondent issued the impugned order dated 1.6.1999 retiring the applicant from service under FR-56(j), paying him pay and allowances for a period of 3 months in lieu of notice.
3. The ld. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. V. Venkateswara Rao, submits that the order is vitiated as it is violative of FR-56(j) as the applicant has not attained the age of 55 years as on the date of the order. It is his case that on the date of the order he has been reverted from Group-B to Group-C post w.e.f. January, 1998, on the basis of penalty awarded in disciplinary proceedings. Hence, FR-56(j) (ii) is attracted.
4. It is the case of the respondents in the counter affidavit that when the process of proceedings for review was initiated on 15th October, 1997, the applicant was holding the post of Tradesman 'G' which is a Group-B post. Due to administrative reasons, the order had to be passed and communicated by the competent authority only on 1.6.1999.
Meanwhile, the applicant was reverted as Tradesman 'F' which is a Group-C cadre, which penalty of reduction was for a period of 3 years from 15.1.1998. Hence, it is stated that initiation of review and action in terms of FR-56(j) in October, 1997, was legal and valid. The subsequent reversion from Group-B to Group-C in January, 1998, has no consequence or relevance to the present issue.
5. Having heard the Counsel for the applicant and the respondents, we find substantial force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the applicant. FR-56(j) reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice; (i) If he is, in Group 'A' or Group 'B' service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years; (ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years." 6. Under this rule, the Govt. has a right, in public interest, to retire Govt. servants working in Group-A or Group-B posts after attaining the age of 50 years and in all other cases, after attaining the age of 55 years.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the applicant was working in Group-C post in view of reversion in January, 1998, from Group-B post and he had not attained the age of 55 years on the date of the order.
8. It is stated that he had only attained the age of 52 years on the date of the order. In our view, the initiation of the process of review in 1997 when the applicant was working in Group-B has no relevance to the final action taken to retire a Govt. servant. Such action should be in accordance with FR-56(j) and in our view, this provision of rule is mandatory. The date of actual retirement is the relevant date for the purpose of attraction of either Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of FR-56(j) and not initiation of proceedings of review.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is contrary of Sub-rule (j) of Rule 56 and is invalid.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The applicant is directed to be reinstated into service within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all consequential benefits.