Order Oral:

1. The petitioners case in a nutshell is that:

The petitioner, who is presently working as a Rfn/BB is preferring the writ petition before this Honble Court being aggrieved by an order dated 1 day of January, 2016 issued by the 32 AR, HQ, DGAR whereby the petitioner has been directed to be retired from service with effect from 30.04.2016 on completion of 30 years of qualifying service on 20.04.2016. The order dated 01.01.2016 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by clause 56 of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 (1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner has not been informed of any remarks in his service career which could have the effect of qualifying him to be a person not to be fit for further retention in service on completing of 30 years of Qualifying service. The impugned order dated 01.01.2016 and the consequent actions of the respondents are also not sustainable since as informed to the petitioner, he is being retired prematurely because of his medical categorization, which is also against the procedure and Rules of the Assam Rifles. It is stated that in similar circumstances, while considering WP(C) No. 12/2015 HAV/GD Ravi R versus Union of India this Honble Court had been pleased to take cognizance of the grievances of the petitioners therein and had also been pleased to stay the pre-mature retirement of the petitioners therein during pendency of the writ petitions. The petitioner has also sought for similar protection from this Honble Court .

2. Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Paul, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. Both the learned counsels submit that, this instant writ petition is covered by a common judgment and order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 12 of 2015 and others dated 15.03.2016 and further contended that, similar judgment and order can be passed in this instant writ petition.

3. For ready reference the contents of the said common judgment and order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 12 of 2015 and others dated 15.03.2016 is reproduced herein below:

5. To answer the issues raised by the petitioners as well as the respondents, let me first look into Rule 48 (1) (a) and Rule 48 (1) (b) under the heading of Regulation of Amounts of Pensions at Chapter-VII or otherwise, it may be called the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 48 (1) (a) and Rule 48 (1) (b) made a provision for retirement on completion of 30(thirty) years of qualifying service. For easy reference the said Rule 48 (1) (a) and Rule 48 (1) (b) is reproduced herein 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 :

Provided further that where the Government servant giving notice under clause (a) of the preceding proviso is under suspension, it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to withhold permission to such Government servant to retire under this rule:

Provided further that the provisions of clause

(a) of this sub-rule shall not apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is

(i) on assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes,

(ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments.

(iii) on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year.

(1-A) (a) A Government servant referred to in Clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reasons therefor.

(b) On receipt of a request under Clause

(a), the Appointing Authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, Appointing Authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months.

6. On perusal of Rule 48 (1) (a) and Rule 48 (1) (b) it appears to me that a Government Servant can retire on completion of 30(thirty) years of qualifying service. Firstly, he may retire from service on his own which is called voluntary retirement and secondly, he may be required by the Appointing Authority to retire in the public interest i.e. compulsory retirement. Of course, this bunch of writ petitions is against the compulsory retirement. Further more, on perusal of the petition and grounds of retirement taking into consideration their physical condition or SHAPE, in my opinion it falls definitely within the public interest, because all the petitioners are serving in the Assam Rifles which is a Para-military force and they are being used to protect our national border to maintain law and order and to combat against insurgency. So, in such circumstances whoever serves in the military or Para-military force they are required to be physically fit, otherwise it may cause immense damage to the national interest as well as to the public interest.

7. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat versus Umedbhai M. Patel: (2001) 3 SCC Page 314 Para 11 Clause (i) was pleased to observe that:

11 (i) Whenever the service of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.

Similarly, in this bunch of writ petitions, it is observed that all the petitioners are not totally physically fit; they are suffering from different illness. But the diseases may be common among the general civilians and the nature of job serving the Para-military force is quite different than a public servant in Secretariat. In Paramilitary force no doubt, they will have to work in the midst of all the adverse situations and circumstances where a person will have to be completely physically fit, otherwise he/she may be a burden to the organization.

8. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Ghani v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir: 1970 (3) SCC Page 525 Para 9 was pleased to observe that:

9. The seventh and the last point urged was that, under the proviso to Section 8 of the Act, non-communication of the grounds of detention is permissible if communication of grounds is against public interest, while, in the direction made by the District Magistrate, he has stated that it is against the interests of the security of the State. This is mere quibbling. Any action in the interest of the security of the State is clearly in public interest, so that the direction was fully covered by the proviso to Section 8.

In my foregoing discussions, I have already mentioned that, service in the Para-military force is different from other civil service and in my considered view to serve in the Para-military force or military force, physical fitness is a must and no one can serve the Para-military force with ailment. The question is whether the petitioners are working as a Cobbler, Cook, Tailor or Helper do not make any difference when they are serving in the Para-military force. In case of emergency or war any member of the Para-military organization can be deputed on duty. So, he/she, if not physically fit cannot do the job in a better manner.

9. The Honble Supreme Court in the case Union of India & Others v. Rajpal Singh: (2009) 1 SCC Page 216 Para 17 was pleased to observe that:

17. It needs little emphasis that fitness of the personnel of Armed Forces at all levels is of paramount consideration and there cannot be any compromise on that score. It is with this object in view, the Legislature has enacted the Army Act, 1950; the Armed Forces Medical Services Act, 1983 and framed the Army Rules. Army Orders are also issued from time to time in order to give effect to these statutory provisions in letter and spirit. As per the procedure detailed in the written submissions, filed on behalf of the appellants, annual or periodic medical examination of the army personnel is done on certain specific norms. The medical status of an army personnel is fixed on the basis of these norms, containing five components viz. (a) psychology (b) hearing (c) appendarist (d) physical, and (e) eye -- which are collectively known as SHAPE. The medical status SHAPE is again characterised in five components known as:-- SHAPE I--physically fit for all purposes. SHAPE II & SHAPE III--not fit for certain duties and are required not to undertake strain, SHAPE IV--those who are in hospital for certain ailments, and SHAPE V--unfit for further service of the Army

10. On perusal of the observations made by Honble the Apex Court above, it is clear that physical fitness is a paramount consideration and there cannot be any compromise on that issue. Besides that, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are getting their full benefit of retirement after completion of 30(thirty) years of qualifying service and physical fitness is not a stigma of oneself. Moreover, by compulsory retirement they will not be debarred for any future employment. Therefore, I do not see any reason in which manner the petitioners will be a loser on their compulsory retirement, rather in my considered view their compulsory retirement is required for the interest of the public as well as the nation as their nature of service is different and harder than an employee working in a civil organization. Since law is clear that a person can be ordered for public interest as mentioned under Rule 48 (1) b of the Central Civil Service (Pension), Rules, 1972 which was discussed elaborately above and on that ground the petitioners are liable for compulsory retirement. A further discussion on other issues in my view is immaterial.

11. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel is that; if they are allowed to continue to do more service they will be benefitted by the 7th Pay Commission pay structure and they will get their regular salaries, which in my view has no relevancy when they were found to be medically unfit. We must remember that national interest as well as public interest is much higher than individual interest. I cannot allow to keep deadwood employees and thereby weakening the forces.

12. For the reasons discussed above and after giving my conscious thought and on perusal of the petitions, counter affidavit, etc, I do not find anything wrong on the part of the respondents to decide an order for compulsory retirement of the petitioners taking into account their medical condition and nature of service. So, I did not find any scope to record reasons to interfere with the decision of the respondents- authority.

13. By this common judgment and order this batch of writ petitions (60 Nos.) mentioned above are found to be devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed and disposed of.

4. Since this instant writ petition is similarly situated and covered by the principle of a common judgment and order dated 15.03.2016 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 12 of 2015 and others, this instant writ petition is also considered and decided in the same parameter and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of.