Assam Rifles Rules | State Cannot Prematurely Retire Officers Without Following Due Procedure: Gauhati High Court

A single judge bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma observed referred to the High Court's decision in Prodip Kumar Haloi vs. Union of India and others, where it was 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.

The petitioner was serving as a Havaldar (GD) in the 42 Assam Rifles Battalion. He was made to prematurely retired with effect from 01.02.2018, on completion of 30 years of qualifying service, by invoking Rule 48 (1) (b) of the 1972 Rules, by the order dated 15.10.2017.

The petitioner submitted that he had been made that he was lacking in Medical Fitness, that is, he did not have the required SHAPE-1, and for no other reason. The petitioner had been made to retire from service after completing 30 years of qualifying for service in 2018. He argued that as per Prodip Kumar (supra) he could not have been prematurely retired from the service on the ground of not having the required medical fitness, by invoking Rules 48 (1) (b) of the 1972 Rules, as the 2010 Rules specifically dealt with retirement or discharge of Subordinate Officers and enrolled persons on grounds of medical fitness.

The Court found that the petitioner had been prematurely retired for not having the required medical fitness, that is, SHAPE – 1. In Prodip Kumar's case, the Court had held that the State respondents, in the guise of applying Rule 48 (1) (b) of the 1972 Rules or 56 (j) cannot retire a person due to low medical categorization, without first following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the 2010 Rules.

The Court found that 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 decision of this Court in Prodip Kumar.

The Court found the impugned order legally unsustainable and set it aside. The Court ordered for the petitioner to be reinstated into service immediately. The State was 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 2010 Rules.

Case Title: GOLAP BISWAKARMA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order