[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Regtl. No. Jc-3400207 W Nb Sub/Gd ... vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 17 February, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
[1]
DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2026.02.17 14:01:05
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020
Regtl. No. JC-3400207 W Nb Sub/GD Narendra Singh,
aged about 52 years, S/o Shri Jagdish Ram, resident of NPO
Marwari Village Via Daulatput Chowk, P.O. Marwari, P.S.
Gagret, District: Una, Himachal Pradesh, PIN: 174319.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi-1.
2. The Director General Assam Rifles, Shillong, Pin: 793011.
3. The Commandant, 45 Assam Rifles, Pin: 932045, C/o
99 APO
...Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Advocate
asstd. by Ms. Julekha Khan, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, CGSC
Date of Hearing :: 28-08-2026
Date of Judgment :: 17-02-2026
J U D G M E N T
[1] Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted
by Ms. Julekha Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
and Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned CGSC appearing for the
respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer
for quashing and setting aside the discharge certificate issued by
the Commandant, 45th Assam Rifles discharging the petitioner from
service w.e.f. 01-08-2016 with retiring pension coupled with the
prayer for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue
in his service.
[2] The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that
the petitioner was enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 05-07-1986 as a
Rifleman (General Duty) and was posted at 1st Assam Rifles on
completion of basic training. He was then promoted to the rank
of Havildar (General Duty) on 15-02-2001, then Warrant Officer
(General Duty) on 01-06-2011 and again promoted to the rank of
Naib Subedar (General Duty) on 01-04-2014.
[3] The Annual Medical Examination of Personnel of Assam
Rifles and cadre officers are governed by Assam Rifles Medical
Examination (Categorisation and Invalidation) Rules, 1988. The
petitioner's Annual Medical Examination was carried out on
30-07-2015 and his medical condition was graded as SHAPE-1
category. However, the petitioner was subsequently diagnosed
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
to be suffering from "Primary Hypothyroidism" on 12-08-2015 at
his unit, i.e., 45th Assam Rifles. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred
to the Specialist at 183 Military Hospital for opinion where his
medical category was downgraded to be placed at P2 (T-24) w.e.f.
02-09-2015. The petitioner's medical category was further reviewed
on 05-03-2016 wherein he was again recommended to continue
in the same Low Medical Category for another six months till
05-09-2016.
[4] The Service Review Board Meeting was held on 17-02-2016
for carrying out the service review of Assam Rifles JCOs Group "B" &
"C" Non-Gazetted employees and other categories for retention in
service after completion of 30 years qualifying service or on
attaining 55 years of age as provided under Rule 48(1)(b) of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 56(j)
respectively. The said Service Review Board considered the case of
the petitioner and found him medically unfit for further retention
beyond 30 years of qualifying service and endorsed the following
remarks:-
"The JCO is LMC case for primary Hypertension w.e.f.
02 Sept. 2015 low med cat P2(T-24). The force is dply in the
CI ops area in NE States and therefore retention of JCO in
LMC for P2(T-24) beyond 30 years of qualifying service or
55 years of age whichever is earlier is recommended only
subject to upgradation to med cat SHAPE-1 in the next
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
review Medical Board on or before completing 30 years of
qualifying service."
[5] The medical condition of the petitioner was reviewed
again on 05-03-2016 wherein he was recommended to continue
in the same Low Medical Category, i.e., P2 for another six months
till 05-09-2016. Thereafter, the authorities issued a Show Cause
Notice dated 23-03-2016 informing the petitioner that in view of his
physical unfitness, his retention beyond 30 years of service is not
in public interest. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to show
cause as to why action under Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972, should not be initiated to retire him from service w.e.f.
01-08-2016.
In response to the said Show Cause Notice, the petitioner
submitted a reply dated 09-08-2016 stating, inter alia, that his next
medical review date is 25-08-2016 and hoped that he will be fully
fit at the time of the next medical examination. The petitioner also
requested the authorities to prepone his medical review date before
he completed 30 years of service.
[6] Just two days after submission of the Show Cause Reply
by the petitioner, the Office of the Directorate General, Assam
Rifles, Shillong, issued an order dated 11-04-2016 in exercise of
the power conferred by Clause 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
and Rules 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 thereby giving
notice to the petitioner that on completion of 30 years of qualifying
service for pension on 05-07-2016, he will retire from service
in the forenoon of 01-08-2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid order
dated 11-04-2016, the authorities issued the Discharge Certificate
discharging the petitioner w.e.f. 01-08-2016 with retiring pension.
The petitioner, having been aggrieved, assailed the same by filing
the present writ petition.
[7] Even though the petitioner assailed the said discharge
certificate by raising various grounds, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned
senior counsel canvassed his argument on behalf of the petitioner
only on one point. It has been submitted by the learned senior
counsel that the Director General, Assam Rifles, discharged the
petitioner from service in exercise of the power conferred by Clause
56(j) of the Fundamental Rules and Rules 48(1)(b) of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972. The argument of the learned senior counsel
is that FR 56(j)(ii) mandates that the Government have the absolute
right to retire any Government servant by giving him a notice of not
less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances
in lieu of such notice after he attained the age of 55 years. It has been
vehemently submitted by the learned senior counsel that as the
petitioner was only 48 years 9 months and 23 days on the date of
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
his discharge, his discharge from service is completely in violation of
the provision of FR 56(j)(ii) and as such, the impugned Discharge
Certificate is rendered illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside
on the ground that the respondents have no power and authority to
discharge the petitioner from service. To buttress his argument, the
learned senior counsel cited the case law reported in (2023) 11 SCC
466 "Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India & anr."
wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-
"16. The provision of Fundamental Rule 56(j) reads as
under:
"FR 56(j) : The appropriate authority shall, if it is of the
opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have
the absolute right to retire any government servant by
giving him notice of not less than three months in
writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of
such notice:
(i) If he is, in Group "A" or Group "B" service or post
in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary
capacity and had entered Government service
before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has
attained the age of 50 years;
(ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of
55 years."
"17. As is apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid
provision, it takes in its fold two elements -- the first one
is the absolute right of the Government to retire an
employee and the second is the requirement of meeting
the condition of public interest for doing so. The
provision also provides for a prior notice of at least three
months to the outgoing employee and mandates that the
said provision can be invoked to retire a government
servant only after he has attained the age of 55 years."
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
[8] Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned CGSC appearing for the
respondents submitted that it is obligatory for the authorities of Assam
Rifles to implement the rules under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Fundamental Rule 56(j)
for carrying out service review of Government servants on completing
30 years of service or on attaining 50/ 55 years of age to ascertain
whether they are fit or unfit for further retention in service in public
interest. The basic criteria for assessing fitness for further retention
in service are fitness, efficiency and competence of Government
servant to perform his duties. The learned counsel submitted that
Service Review Board are constituted in the force to take into account
the whole service records of the affected employees to ascertain
their fitness and persons found unfit are made to retire from service
on retiring pension in public interest with full pensionary benefits on
completion of either 30 years of qualifying service or on attaining the
age of 50/ 55 years as provided under Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension)
Rules and Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules.
[9] It has also been submitted by the learned CGSC that in
the present case, the Service Review Board considered the case
of the petitioner along with others on 17-02-2016 and the Service
Review Board found him medically unfit for further retention beyond
30 years of qualifying service due to his Low Medical Category
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
P2(T-24). Taking into consideration the said recommendation made
by the Service Review Board and the petitioner's Low Medical
Category and also taking into account that the Assam Rifles units
are deployed in hilly and inhospitable terrain with adverse climatic
conditions and the requirements of physical fitness with mental
robustness of a combatant personnel of Assam Rifles, which is of
paramount importance, the authorities of Assam Rifles found the
petitioner unfit for further retention in service beyond 30 years. In
view of the above, the Director General, Assam Rifles, was of the
opinion that it will be in the public interest to give notice to the
petitioner by issuing an order dated 11-04-2016 that on completion
of 30 years of qualifying service for pension on 05-07-2016, the
petitioner will retire from service w.e.f. 01-08-2016. After giving such
written notice to the petitioner, the authorities of Assam Rifles issued
the impugned Discharge Certificate. According to the learned counsel,
the authorities of Assam Rifles retired the petitioner from service
strictly as provided under Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 and that the authorities have not committed any illegality in
issuing the impugned Discharge Certificate.
[10] The learned CGSC further submitted that there is also
gross and unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner
in approaching this court. It has been submitted by the learned
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
counsel that the petitioner was made to retire from service with full
pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01-08-2016 and the petitioner has been
enjoying his pensionary benefits for the last about 10 years. It has
also been pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner
have already received his retiral benefits such as Service Gratuity,
Commutation Amount, Leave Encashment, etc. and as such, the
petitioner cannot turn around and challenge his retirement from
service, which have been done strictly in compliance with the relevant
provisions of the rules. The learned counsel, accordingly, prays for
dismissing the present writ petition as being devoid of merit.
[11] I have heard at length the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also carefully
examined all the materials available on record. In the present case,
the following facts are undisputed:-
(a) The petitioner was enrolled in the Assam Rifles as a
Rifleman (GD) on 05-07-1986;
(b) He was made to retire from service w.e.f. 01-08-2016;
(c) As on 01-08-2016, the petitioner have rendered more than
30 years of service;
(d) The Office of the Director General, Assam Rifles, issued a
Show Cause Notice dated 23-05-2016 to the petitioner
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
informing him that due to his existing physical unfitness,
his retention beyond 30 years of service was not in public
interest and directed the petitioner to Show Cause as to
why action under Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 should not be initiated to retire him from service
w.e.f. 01-08-2016;
(e) The petitioner did not disputed his medical category as
P2 (T-24) in his reply to the Show Cause Notice dated
09-04-2016;
(f) The Office of the Director General, Assam Rifles, issued
an order dated 11-04-2016 thereby giving notice to the
petitioner that on completion of 30 years of qualifying service
for pension on 05-07-2016, he will retire from service
w.e.f. 01-08-2016;
(g) The authorities of Assam Rifles issued the impugned
Discharge Certificate of the petitioner with retiring pension;
and
(h) The petitioner have availed all his retiral benefits and
enjoying pension since his retirement without any protest.
[12] Taking into consideration the above undisputed facts, this
court is of the considered view that while retiring the petitioner from
service the authorities have scrupulously followed the mandate of
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and this court did
not find any lacuna in the process adopted by the Assam Rifles
authorities while issuing the impugned Discharge Certificate for
interfering with the same.
[13] With regard to the ground raised by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned Discharge
Certificate had been issued illegally and in violation of the mandate
of Fundamental Rule 56(j), this court respectfully cannot agree with
such contention. The reason is, this court is of the considered view
that the provision of Rule 48(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
and the provision of FR 56(j) are separate and distinct rules which
can operate independently on its own without one controlling or
overriding the other. For easy reference, the provisions of the said two
rules are reproduced hereunder:-
F.R. 56(j):
"FR 56 (j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule,
the Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that
it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute
right to retire any Government servant by giving him
notice of not less than three months in writing or three
months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:
(i) If he is, in Group 'A' or Group 'B' service or post in a
substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity
and had entered Government service before attaining
the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of
50 years;
(ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of
fifty-five years."
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972:
"48. Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying
service
(1) At any time after a Government servant has
completed thirty years' qualifying service -
(a) he may retire from service, or
(b) may be required by the Appointing Authority to
retire in the public interest
and in the case of such retirement the Government
servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension:
Provided that -
(a) a Government servant shall give a notice in writing
to the Appointing Authority at least three months
before the date on which he wishes to retire; and
(b) the Appointing Authority may also give a notice in
writing to a Government servant at least three
months before the date on which he is required to
retire in the public interest or three months' pay
and allowances in lieu of such notice:"
[14] There may be instances where the Government wants to
evaluate the fitness of an employee, who have rendered 30 years
of service but who is yet to attain the age of 50/55 years, to ascertain
whether he is fit or unfit for further retention in service in public
interest. In such cases, this court is of the considered view that the
Government can proceed for such evaluation under the provisions of
Rule 48(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules without adverting to the provisions
of FR 56(j). On the other hand, there may be cases where the
Government wants to evaluate the fitness of an employee, who have
attained the age of 50/ 55 years but who have rendered less than
30 years of service, to ascertain whether he is fit or unfit for further
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
retention in service in public interest. In my considered view, in
such cases, the Government can resort to the provisions of FR 56(j)
for such evaluation independently and without adverting to the
provisions of Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Retiring
an employee from service by resorting to the provision of Rules,
either under Rule 48(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules or under FR 56(j)
independently cannot be regard as illegal so long as all the
requirements mandated under the said two rules are fulfilled.
[15] In the present case, as the petitioner had been made to
retire from service w.e.f. 01-08-2016 and as he had availed all
the retiral benefits and enjoying his pensionary benefits since his
retirement without any protest, this court is of the considered
view that it will not be in the interest of justice to upset this settled
position at this point of time. In the result, the present writ petition fails
and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, however without
any order as to cost.
JUDGE
Devananda
FR/NFR
WP(C) No. 293 of 2020 Contd.../-
