CWP No.20889 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.20889 of 2008 Date of decision: 12.12.2008 Subhash Singla ...Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14th February, 2006, passed by respondent No.2 retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years as well as subsequent orders passed on his representation, appeal etc. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant-III on 19th October, 1971 and was promoted as Technical Assistant-I in September, 1980. On attaining the age of 50 years, the competent authority decided to retire him from service. The petitioner thereafter preferred a representation against the order, Annexure P-1, which was rejected vide order dated 24th November, 2006, Annexure P-5. A detailed order was passed by the Executive Director (North Zone) and contentions raised by the petitioners were considered therein. It was also mentioned in the order that the petitioner had caused a loss of approximately Rs.7.90 crores to the Food Corporation of India (for brevity “FCI”) and 15 disciplinary cases were pending against him on CWP No.20889 of 2008 2 the date of his premature retirement. The representation was thus rejected. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the said order. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 22nd October, 2007. Aggrieved by the action of the FCI, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel has contended that the impugned order has been passed by the General Manager who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and thus the same is vitiated. This apart, the impugned order is totally arbitrary as legal issues raised by the petitioner have not been taken into consideration. The appeal has also been rejected without any basis. We have given our careful thought to the matter and perused the record annexed with the petition. Regulation 22 (2) of the FCI (Staff Regulations), 1971 (for brevity “the FCI Regulations”) reads as under:- “Regulation 22: Superannuation and retirement: (1) Every employee appointed to the service of the Corporation shall retire on the last date of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. Provided that a category IV employee who has been transferred to the corporation under section 12-A of the Act and who has opted to be governed by leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Central CWP No.20889 of 2008 3 Government in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government as amended from time to time in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 12A of the Act, shall retire on the last date of the month, on which he shall attain the age of 60 years. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1): (i) The appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so, have the absolute right to retire a Cat. I, II, III, IV employee after he has attained the age of 50 years by giving him a notice of not less than 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. (ii) Provided that an employee belonging to the above categories may, by giving notice of not less than 3 months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service of the Corporation after she has attained the age of 50 years. The qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement of the employee of the Corporation under this provision shall be increased by a period not exceeding 5 years subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Corporation employee does not in any case exceed 33 years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. (iii) The benefit of five years under clause (ii) above shall not be admissible in case of those Corporation employees who are prematurely retired by the Corporation in public interest under sub clause (i) above. CWP No.20889 of 2008 4 Note: In computing the notice period of 3 months referred to above, the date of serving of the notice and that the date of its expiry shall be excluded. (3) Nothing contained in clause (1) and clause (2) shall effect the right of the competent authority to retire an employee with due notice or pay in lieu thereof on his being certified by a medical examiner to be nominated for the purpose by such authority as being incapacitated for a further period of a continuous service due to his continued illness or accident. (4) An employee may be permitted to retire at his own request on the competent authority being satisfied that such employee is incapacitated for a further period of continuous service due to his continued illness or accident. Provided that before acting under this clause it shall be open to such authority to require the employee to undergo a medical examination by such medical examiner as it may nominate for this purpose. (5) The competent authority for the purpose of this regulation shall in respect of an employee be the authority competent to terminate the services of an employee of equivalent rank under clause (1) of Regulation 19.” In terms of the above regulations, the competent authority is within its power to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years. The rule makes it clear that this power is to be exercised by the appropriate authority if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to retire an employee when he attains the age of 50 years. CWP No.20889 of 2008 5 We have perused the impugned orders, the same have been passed in terms of Regulation 22 of the FCI Regulations. We have not been able to find any legal infirmity with the impugned orders. The counsel has not been able to show how the impugned orders have been passed in contravention of the aforesaid Regulation which empowers the competent authority to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years. It has also not been shown how the General Manager (Punjab) is not competent to pass an order under Regulation 22 to retire an employee of the rank of Technical Assistant-I from service. We are thus of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. No other point has been urged by the counsel. The writ petition is thus dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE December 12, 2008 'rajpal'