dofp2024_00163 — Applicant had attained the age of 50 and hence was eligible for retirement under FR 56 (j). The order of compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j) and the subsequent decision of the duly constituted 'Representation Committee' upholding the order of compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j) was found to be legally valid and not stigmatic. Payment of 'three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice' on the date of order of compulsory retirement not obligatory under 56 (j)

Applicant had attained the age of 50 and hence was eligible for retirement under FR 56 (j). The order of compulsory retirement under FR 56

(j) and the subsequent decision of the duly constituted 'Representation Committee' upholding the order of compulsory retirement under FR 56

(j) was found to be legally valid and not stigmatic. Payment of 'three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice' on the date of order of compulsory retirement not obligatory under 56

(j) — This chunk is a section of a legal case document, O.A. No. 170/00095 of 2024, which involves a dispute over the compulsory retirement of an Income Tax Officer under FR 56

(j) of Fundamental Rules. Th... — Facts: The Applicant joined the service as UDC on 9-10-1990 in the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, he was promoted as Income Tax Officer on 4-11-2008. His superannuation was due on 31-3-2027. But before superannuation, the Respondents passed the order of compulsory retirement under Section 56

(j) of Fundamental Rules on 21-10-2020. Thereafter Applicant filed O.A. No. 290/2021 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore against the aforesaid order. But the Respondents raised the preliminary objection of 'maintainability' on the ground that without availing the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules, the Applicant has approached the Hon'ble Tribunal. Considering the objections made by the Respondents, the Hon'ble Tribunal disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the Applicant to submit a representation before the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if such representation is made, the 'Representation Committee' shall consider the same on merits without going into the issue of limitation and shall decide the matter in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. After the aforesaid order of Tribunal, the Applicant submitted a representation, dated 18-7-2023 and the same was considered in detail by the representation Committee and the representation Committee also dismissed the representation of the Applicant by impugned Order, dated 8-1-2024 and found that the Applicant was rightly compulsory retired by Order, dated 21-10-2020. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant filed the present OA. The Applicant challenged the Orders, dated 21-10-2020 and 8-1-2024 contending that the latter was issued by an authority without jurisdiction— specifically, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, instead of the competent authority viz. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji. He further contended that the compulsory retirement under FR 56

(j) was arbitrary, illegal, and void as neither three months' notice nor salary in lieu thereof was provided at the time of issuance of the order. The salary for only 83 days was paid belatedly i.e. seven months after the order. The Applicant further submitted that his service record was clean, had unquestioned integrity and no adverse material existed to justify premature retirement and prayed that both orders have to be quashed for being non est, arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The Applicant further argued that in cases of compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j), the equivalent pay and allowances for three months must be paid on the same date as the retirement order (i.e. 21-10-2020) and that any delay in such payment renders the retirement order void. In support of his contention, the Applicant relied upon the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India [ (1975) 3 SCC 458 ] and R.M.S. v. K.V. Gopinath [ (1975) 3 SCC 867 ] wherein an identical Rule 5(1)

(a) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 came to be interpreted and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that payment was a condition of the termination of service forthwith and once it is not done, the order would be voided. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant also referred to the judgments in the case of Krishna Kamal Ghosh v. Union of India [ 1979 SCC OnLine Cal. 222 ] and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri. Nathu Singh and Another [ 2014 SCCOnLine Raj 3319 ]. In contrast, the Respondents maintained that Section 56

(j) does not require immediate payment on the date of the order. They pointed out that the Applicant had been paid the sum equivalent to three months' pay and allowances, calculated based on his last drawn salary prior to retirement. Additionally, the Respondents argued that the legal precedents cited by the Applicant were inapplicable, as they pertain to statutes other than Section 56(j), which have different legal frameworks and requirements. Thus, they asserted the retirement order remains valid even if the payment was made after issuance of the order. The Respondents opposed the claim of Applicant and it is submitted that the competent authority passed the impugned order in public interest and the Applicant has been retired in public interest. His representation has been duly considered by the 'representation committee' and the representation committee came to the conclusion that the representation is liable to be rejected and therefore, it cannot be said that the order has not been passed by the competent authority.