AKSHAY BIPIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju vs. Union of India & Ors., 2018 AIR(SC) 4197, decided on 07.09.2018.

(2.) Since the petitioner has not completed 5 years of service and also not attained the age of 65 years, retiring him at the age of 62 years was clearly an illegal act on the part of the respondents contrary to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 which is rechristened as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Therefore, we set aside that order. We make the rule absolute. The petitioner shall be entitled to work till the age of 65 years or 5 years in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner immediately with continuity of service as well as salary for the interim period.

(3.) We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that, before the passing of the impugned order retiring/directing him to demit the Office at the age of 62 years, a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner on 28.03.2018. However, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Delhi, vide Judgment dated 25.09.2018, the said chargesheet has been quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have decided to challenge the said order by filing Letters Patent Appeal. That is totally an independent action, and if the respondents so desire, they may file the Letters Patent Appeal and the order passed in this case, naturally, will have no bearing on the same.