Disposed¶29

Jay Ram Yadav v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2025WP(C)/1207/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compulsory retirement; FR-56(J); Rule 42 Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules 2021; CISF; Group Commandant Guwahati; non-application of mind; representation dated 08/10/2024; speaking order; eight weeks; premature writ petition; disposal without adjudication; liberty to re-approach High Court; WP(C)/1207/2025; Justice Suman Shyam; decision date 05/03/2025.

What did the court decide?

No independent adjudication of the compulsory retirement order; writ petition closed on the respondents' undertaking that the representation dated 08/10/2024 will be considered on merit and disposed of by a speaking order within eight weeks; petitioner at liberty to file a fresh petition if still aggrieved. ¶29

Jay Ram Yadav Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12/09/2024 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service under FR-56(J) read with Rule 42 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 is vitiated by non-application of mind. +1 more

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the submissions at the Bar and the assurance of the learned CGC, the writ petition stands closed with a direction that the representation dated 08/10/2024 submitted by the petitioner be considered on merit and disposed of by a speaking order within eight weeks.

¶26

Key takeaways

If the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved after disposal of the representation, it would be open to him to approach the Court once again by filing an appropriate petition.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/1207/2025, order dated 05/03/2025 (Justice Suman Shyam): Jay Ram Yadav challenged, by writ petition, his compulsory retirement from service effected by the Group Commandant, CISF HQ, Guwahati, on 12/09/2024 under FR-56(J) read with Rule 42 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021, alleging non-application of mind. Learned CGC Ms. R. Devi informed the Court that the petitioner's representation dated 08/10/2024 was under active consideration of the departmental authorities and undertook to dispose of it by a speaking order within eight weeks, submitting that the writ petition was pre-mature. Accepting the assurance, the Court closed the writ petition, directing that the representation be considered on merit and disposed of by a speaking order within eight weeks, while reserving to the petitioner the liberty to approach the Court afresh by an appropriate petition if still aggrieved. The Court made no finding on the validity of the compulsory retirement order.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010031582025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1207/2025

¶6

JAY RAM YADAV

¶7

S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD YADAV, A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BAIRO, DISTRICT- SUPAUL, BIHAR-852123

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CISF HEADQUARTER BLOCK 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

¶11

3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶12

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CISF HEADQUARTER BLOCK 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

¶13

4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF GROUP HEADQUARTERS HOCKEY STADIUM ROAD GUWAHATI-781029 ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

5:THE GROUP COMMANDANT CISF GROUP HEADQUARTERS HOCKEY STADIUM ROAD GUWAHATI-781029 ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K BAIDYA, MR. M SARMA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 05/03/2025

¶22

Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Perused the averments made in the writ petition.

¶23

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 12/09/2024 issued by the Group Commandant, CISF HQ, Guwahati, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service by invoking the jurisdiction under the provisions of FR-56(J) read with Rule 42 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021.

¶24

According to the petitioner’s counsel, the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind.

¶25

Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that on 08/10/2024, the petitioner had submitted a representation ventilating his grievance in the matter, which is under active consideration of the departmental authorities. Therefore, if 8 (eight) weeks’ time is granted by this Court, the representation will be disposed of by a speaking order. Ms. Devi further submits that the writ petition is pre-mature.

¶26

Taking note of the submissions made at the Bar and in view of the assurance given by the learned CGC that the representation submitted by the writ petitioner will be considered on merit and disposed of within eight weeks from today, this writ petition stands closed by providing that the representation dated 08/10/2024 submitted by the writ petitioner be considered and disposed of by a speaking order within 8 (eight) weeks from today.

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

If the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved in the matter even thereafter, it would be open for him to approach this Court once again by filing appropriate petition.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Jay Ram Yadav v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Ram Yadav v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjib Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Zarir Ahmed Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Makram Hussain Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Krishna Das Vs Rahul Chandra Das

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs M/S R K Wire Netting Industries

Joy Prakash Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.