THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Writ Petition No. 21066 of 2001 Order: (per Hon’ble Mrs Justice T. Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2001 passed in O.A. No. 944 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad, directing to reinstate the first respondent herein into service within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order with all consequential benefits, the petitioner-Organization filed the present writ petition. The first respondent herein filed O.A. No. 944 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad, questioning the order No.020/5(1.1)/96-Estt-II, dated 01.06.1999, issued by the second petitioner-Director, ISRO Telemetry Tracking and Command Network, Department of Space, Government of India, Bangalore, retiring the first respondent prematurely from service in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and also in the public interest and rejecting his representation dated 02.06.1999. The case of the first respondent herein before the Tribunal is that as per Clause (j) of Fundamental Rules 56 the Government have right, in public interest, to retire the Government 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, but as on the date of passing of the impugned orders, he was working in Group-C post and he has not attained the age of 55 years and at that time he was only 53 years and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated. The stand of the petitioner-Organization before the Tribunal was that as per sub-clause (i) of clause (j) of FR-56, the officer who 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, shall retire compulsorily in the public interest, and that even as on the date of passing the impugned orders the first respondent was holding the post in Group-C service, when the process of proceedings for review was initiated in 1997 the first respondent was holding the post in Group-B service and, therefore, the embargo that the first respondent should attain the age of 55 years cannot be applied in this case as the process was initiated when he had attained the age of 50 years and was in Group-B service. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and considering the entire material on record, held that the initiation of process of review in 1997 when the first respondent was working in Group-B has no relevance to the final action taken to retire a Government servant and such action should be in accordance with FR-56(j), which is mandatory, and that 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, and accordingly, quashed the impugned order and directed to reinstate the first respondent herein into service within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Organization filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Organization and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Organization has advanced his argument before us more or less the same argument advanced before the Tribunal and tried to support the impugned proceedings dated 01.06.1999 relying on sub-clause (i) of clause (j) of FR-56 contending that when the process of proceedings for review was initiated in 1997 the first respondent was holding the post in Group-B service and that the observation of the Tribunal that 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) is not in consonance with the provisions of clause (j) of FR-56, hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that the Tribunal is perfectly right in observing that the date of actual retirement has to be taken into consideration and not the initiation of proceedings of review and nothing to interfere with the same. Clause (j) of FR-56 is as under. “(j) 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;” From the above provision, it is clear that a person who is in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service can be retired in the public interest by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, provided if he had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years, and in any other case after he has attained the age of 55 years. In the instant case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Organization that the date of initiation of the process of review has to be taken into consideration cannot be sustained for the reason that though the initiation of the process of review has started in the year 1997, the first respondent was in Group-C service and was aged about 53 years when the order of compulsory retirement in public interest was passed. Therefore, the provisions of FR-56 (j)(i) cannot be made applicable to the present case as the first respondent was no more in Group-A or Group-B service and he was in Group-C service. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the date of actual retirement is the relevant date for the purpose of attraction of either sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of FR-56(j) and not initiation of proceedings of review and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 28.07.2010. Nsr/Bvv