STAFF REPORTER
GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has cited a procedural lapse and set aside an order of the Assam Rifles authority whereby a havildar (GD) was made to retire prematurely on the ground of unsatisfactory medical fitness.
The impugned order of the Assam Rifles was issued on October 15, 2107 by invoking Rule 48 (1) (b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and it directed the petitioner, one Golap Biswakarma, to prematurely retire with effect from February 1, 2018 on completion of 30 years of qualifying service.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner had been made to retire on the ground that he was lacking in medical fitness and that he was not in the required 'Shape-1'. He further referred to an earlier judgment of the Gauhati High Court in a similar case, wherein it had been held that the personnel concerned could not have been prematurely retired from service on the ground of not having the required medical fitness by invoking Rule 48 (1) (b) of the 1972 Rules. This was because Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 specifically dealt with retirement or discharge of subordinate officers and enrolled persons on grounds of medical fitness.
After hearing the petitioner's counsel, the court observed that the documents filed by the authorities "clearly show that the petitioner has not been prematurely retired on the ground that the Government servant's integrity was doubtful or that he was found to be ineffective in service…This court in the case of Prodip Kumar Haloi…has held that Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 would have to be followed prior to applying Rule 48 (1) (b) of the pension Rules/FR 56 (j), for prematurely retiring a Government servant due to his low medical category. This court further held that the State respondents, 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. In the present case, the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service on the ground of his low medical categorization by applying Rule 48 (1) (b) of the 1972 Rules, without first applying the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, which is not sustainable as per the (earlier) decision of this court."
While directing that "the petitioner would have to be reinstated into service immediately", the court added: "Liberty is given to the State respondents to examine the medical fitness of the petitioner and take further steps, if necessary by applying Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010."
Also Watch: