CIPHER GAVENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order dtd. 28/1/2021, whereby in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 48(1) (b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondents compulsory retired the petitioner on completion of 30 years of qualifying service for pension. The petitioner had preferred a representation alleging the fact that he was medically fit and ACR also is up to the mark and that no service review was carried out to warrant the impugned action. However, it is submitted that 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 the affidavit have contended that he was found ineligible for further retention in service due to lacking in ACR criteria, as he was found to have 'Not Recommended for promotion' in the ACR of 2017-2018 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 the impugned order was issued fixing his retirement date on 1/5/2021, giving him a clear 3(three) months notice.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. B. Pathak, 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.