Disposed

Nand Kishor Meena v. Food Corporation of India

Delhi HC4 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/99/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging compulsory premature retirement under FCI Staff Regulations. Both sides agreed to apply Punjab and Haryana High Court directions requiring reconsideration of employees promoted within five years preceding premature retirement. Court directed FCI to implement those directions and dispose of petitioner's detailed representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

FCI directed to reconsider petitioner's case per Punjab & Haryana HC directions and decide his representation within eight weeks; no costs.

Nand Kishor Meena Vs Food Corporation of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 04.01.2024 + W.P.(C) 99/2024 NAND KISHOR MEENA ..... Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent

¶6

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Yashpal Singh, Advocate.

¶8

For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj, Standing Counsel for FCI with Ms. Aparna Sinha, Advocate. CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

(The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode)

¶13

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 19.07.2023 compulsorily retiring the petitioner prematurely from service under Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulation, 1971 and also to quash order dated 01.11.2023, whereby the representation made by the petitioner on 01.08.2023 was rejected and further, a writ

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

W.P.(C) 99/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶16

Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 13:31:06

¶17

of Mandamus directing the respondent to re-instate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that in similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had passed certain directions vide the order dated 22.12.2023 in CWP-26180-2023 captioned as “Birendra Singh Chauhan And Ors. vs. Food Corporation of India And Ors.” and batch matters.

¶19

Learned counsel jointly submit that the directions passed in the aforesaid judgment may also be passed by this Court for implementation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case similar directions are passed by this Court. 5. Learned Single Judge in the aforesaid order had passed directions in para No.17, which are as follows :-

¶20

“17. From the perusal of dossier which was put up before the Reviewing Committee, the noting/opinion of Reviewing Committee and Representation Committee, this Court finds that Reviewing Committee has not taken care of mandate and spirit of Clause IV of paragraph 10 of the circular dated 09.07.2021. It is settled law that circulars are not binding upon the courts, however, department is bound by its circulars. The circular dated 09.07.2021 was issued by FCI, thus, it is precluded to argue contrary to circular and was bound to meticulously follow the same.

¶21

In the dossier, the fact of promotion of employees in preceding 5 years was noticed, however, this fact has not been noticed either by Reviewing Committee or by Representation Committee. This fact in the light of Clause (iv) read with Clause (v) of paragraph 10 of circular dated 09.07.2021 needs to be considered, thus, the respondents are directed to re-consider case of all those petitioners who were promoted during 5 years preceding the date of premature retirement. It is made clear that this order would not be construed as

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

W.P.(C) 99/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶24

Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 13:31:06

¶25

reinstatement of the said employees. The respondent as conceded, in the light of Clause (iv) and (v) of paragraph 10 of aforesaid circular, would decide fate of these petitioners within 8 weeks from today.”

¶26

Since the petitioner is agreeable to similar directions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-FCI implement the said directions in the case of the present petitioner too.

¶27

The said directions be implemented and complied with within eight weeks from today.

¶28

The petitioner is permitted to submit a detailed representation to the respondent, which may apply the principles stated in the aforesaid order/judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and dispose of the same in accordance with law and the aforesaid judgment. The said detailed representation may be filed within one week and the same be disposed of within eight weeks from its receipt.

¶29

The petition is disposed of in the above terms, without any orders as to costs.

¶30

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶31

JANUARY 4, 2024 / nd

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

W.P.(C) 99/2024 Page 3 of 3

¶34

Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 13:31:06

Nand Kishor Meena v. Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishor Meena v. Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Shashi Gupta and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Chopra Vs BSNL & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Sym Company Vs Pr. Commissioner, Customs (Import) and Ors.

Arun Garg Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 35 1 Delhi

Abc Rj Land 01 Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Vivek Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Om Narayan Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ms. Shashi Gupta and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pankaj Vs Modern Child Public Sr. Sec. School (Recognized) & Ors.

Ms. Shweta Chauhan Vs Union of India through the Chairman of Union Public Service Commission

Mehmoodul Hasan Vs Govt. Ofnct of Delhi and Anr.

Shubham Pratap Singh Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Kvs) & Ors.

Krishna Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.