HAVILDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order dtd. 28/6/2021, whereby in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondents issued notice to the petitioner that on completing 30 years of qualifying service for pension on 16/12/2021, he was to retire from service on the forenoon of 1/1/2022. The petitioner had preferred a representation alleging the fact that he was medically fit and ACR also is up to the mark but however, it is submitted, no action was taken on the representation by the respondents. It is also the case of the petitioner that no adverse ACR had ever been communicated to him, and as such, the same could not have been taken for consideration in the review of his service beyond 30 years of qualifying service.

(2.) The respondents by their affidavit have stated that as the petitioner had become due for service review in June, 2021 as he was nearing the completion of 30 years of qualifying service in terms of Rule 48(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the same was conducted and on the last five Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 being examined by the Service Review Board, he was found ineligible for further retention in service due to lacking in ACR criteria, as he was found to have graded 'Average' and 'Not Recommended for promotion' in the ACRs for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 by his reporting officers. It is also contended that in view of this aspect, further retention in service was 'Not Recommended' by the Service Review Board and a show cause notice dtd. 25/6/2021 was issued to him to submit a reply within 2 (two) weeks which was received by the petitioner. However, the show cause notice was treated as infructuous as there was no requirement for such show cause and the impugned order was issued fixing his retirement date on 1/1/2022, giving him a clear 3(three) months' notice.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that this case is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dtd. 23/3/2022, passed in MC(WA) No. 64 of 2021 in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Joseph K.S., and that the petitioner shall therefore be entitled to similar relief.