Dismissed¶¶80

Subhadramma T.G., v. Union of India

Kerala HC26 Mar 2025WP(C)/7688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: compulsory retirement; premature retirement; Regulation 22(2); FCI Staff Regulations 1971; deadwood; black sheep; APAR/APAR grading; Review Committee; Appellate Authority; DoPT OM 28.08.2020; FCI Circular 09.07.2021 Clause 10; M. S. Bindra 1998 KHC 1184; Suryakant Chunilal Shah 1999 KHC 920; judicial review of employer's retirement decision; writ dismissed. Kerala High Court, Ernakulam; bench: D. K. Singh, J.; decided 26.03.2025; neutral citation 2025:KER:26140; case W.P.(C) No. 7688 of 2024; parties: Subhadramma T.G. (petitioner) v. Union of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs and Food Corporation of India (respondents).

What did the court decide?

From the APAR extracts, the petitioner, though holding the higher post of Assistant General Manager, lacked initiative year after year and had become deadwood in the organisation.

Subhadramma T.G., Vs Union of India — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶80

Issue for consideration

Whether the Reviewing Authority's (Review Committee's) decision to prematurely retire the petitioner was based on relevant criteria rather than irrelevant considerations. +2 more

¶¶79

Court's answer

The Review Committee's decision to retire the petitioner prematurely does not suffer from any illegality or perversity requiring this Court's interference; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶¶80

Ratio / Principle

From the APAR extracts, the petitioner, though holding the higher post of Assistant General Manager, lacked initiative year after year and had become deadwood in the organisation.

¶¶80

Key takeaways

Overall work and conduct during service, and not the APAR record alone, must be evaluated to reach a conclusion whether an employee has become deadwood.ratio¶¶76
Employees' work and performance are reviewed to identify 'deadwoods' and 'black sheep', whose premature retirement is called for so that the organisation's work does not suffer.obiter¶¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kerala High Court (Ernakulam), D. K. Singh, J. (neutral citation 2025:KER:26140), dismisses W.P.(C) No. 7688 of 2024 filed by Subhadramma T.G., Assistant General Manager in the Food Corporation of India, challenging her compulsory retirement under Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 w.e.f. 19.05.2023 (Exhibit P-1 order dated 19.05.2023, with three months' salary directed to be paid in view of the notice), the subsequent rejection of her appeal by the Appellate Authority (Managing Director, FCI), and the Review Committee decision dated 04.05.2023. The petitioner, who had risen from Typist Grade-III (1989 Special Recruitment for Scheduled Tribes) to AGM (2014), relied on her 'fair'/'good' APAR gradings, Clause 10 broad criteria of the FCI Circular dated 09.07.2021 (based on DoPT OM dated 28.08.2020), and the judgments in M. S. Bindra v. Union of India [1998 KHC 1184] and State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999 KHC 920]; the Corporation countered with APARs from 2015 onwards recording lack of initiative. The Court held that the year-after-year APAR comments showed lack of initiative and that the petitioner had become deadwood, that overall work and conduct—not APARs alone—must be weighed, and that the Review Committee's decision suffered no illegality or perversity warranting interference.

¶1

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 1

¶2

2025:KER:26140

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶7

WP(C) NO.7688OF 2024

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SUBHADRAMMA T.G.,
AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. GOPALAN T.K.,
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF
INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.10,

¶10

EAST END MAIN ROAD, 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560041, RESIDING AT ANANDHU BHAVAN,
SREENARAYANA ROAD, ETTUVEEDU VILLA, KOCHUPALLI,
NADAKKAVU P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682307.

¶11

BY ADV.

¶12

 K. SANDESH RAJA

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & PD, KRISHI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.

¶15

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.

¶16

3 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BARKHAMBA LANE, HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.

¶17

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 2

¶18

2025:KER:26140

¶19

BY ADV.
 JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 3

¶22

2025:KER:26140

¶23

D. K. SINGH, J.

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 7688 of 2024

¶26

¶27

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2025

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the decision taken in Exhibit P-1 whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the post of Assistant General Manager in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) under Regulation 22(2) of FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 w.e.f. 19.05.2023. In view of the notice, the petitioner was directed to be paid three months salary.

¶30

The petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Appellate Authority, the Managing Director of the FCI, whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 19.05.2023 was rejected and, thereafter, the decision of the Review Committee dated 04.05.2023 has been challenged in the said writ petition.

¶31

The petitioner started her career in the FCI as Typist Grade – III

¶32

pursuant to the selection conducted by the FCI in Special Recruitment of Scheduled Tribe in the year 1989. Her career progressed in the FCI, and she reached the level of Assistant Grade -

¶33

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 4

¶34

2025:KER:26140

¶35

I in the year 2001. Thereafter she came to the Managerial cadre and was promoted as Assistant Manager against the quota earmarked for Scheduled Tribes in the year 2004 and thereafter she was promoted as Assistant General Manager in the year 2014 against the vacancy earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes.

¶36

The FCI, after examining the work, conduct and APRs of the petitioner, had decided to retire the petitioner from the services of the FCI vide the order dated 19.05.2023 and the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and Review Committee.

¶37

The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Circular dated 09.07.2021 issued by the FCI Headquarters which laid down certain norms for conducting the review of the corporation employees for strengthening of administration under Regulation 22(2) of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. The aforesaid Circular has been issued on the basis of the OM issued by the DoPT dated 28.08.2020. Clause 10 of the said Circular provides Broad Criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making recommendations for premature retirement of the employee of the Corporation. Clause 10 of the Circular in Exhibit P-5 on reproduction would read as under;

¶38

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 5

¶39

2025:KER:26140

¶40

10. Broad Criteria to be followed by the Review Committee:- The

¶41

broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making the recommendations are as follows:-

¶42

(i) Corporation employees whose integrity is doubtful shall be retired.

¶43

(ii) Corporation employees found to be ineffective shall also be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such Corporation employees should be their fitness/competence to continue in the post held.

¶44

(iii) No Corporation employee should ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness, if, in any event, he would be retiring on superannuation within a period of one year from the date of consideration of his case. However, in case where there is a sudden and steep fall in the competence, efficiency or effectiveness of a Corporation employee, it would be open to review such a case also for premature retirement. The said instruction of not retiring the Corporation employee within one year on the ground of ineffectiveness except in case of sudden and steep fall in his performance is relevant only when he is proposed to be retired on the ground of ineffectiveness, but not on the ground of doubtful integrity.

¶45

(iv) No Corporation employee should ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness, if, his service during the preceding 5 years or where he has been promoted to a higher post during that 5 year period, his service in the highest post, has been found satisfactory. There is no such stipulation, however, where the Corporation employee is to be retired on grounds of doubtful integrity. In case of those Corporation employees who have been promoted during the last 5 years, the previous entries in

¶46

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 6

¶47

2025:KER:26140

¶48

the APARs may be taken into account if he was promoted on the basis of seniority cum fitness, and not on the basis of merit.

¶49

(v) The entire service record of a Corporation employee should be considered at the time of review. The expression ‘service record’ refers to all relevant records and therefore, the review should not be confined to the consideration of the APAR dossier. The personal file of the Corporation employee may contain valuable material. Similarly, his work and performance could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him. It would be useful if the concerned Internal Committee puts together all the data available about Corporation employee and prepares a comprehensive brief for consideration by the Review Committee. Even uncommunicated remarks in the APARs may be taken into consideration.

¶50

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the

¶51

Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APARs) of the petitioner would disclose that her integrity was doubtful. The petitioner was awarded grading of ‘good’ or ‘fair’ and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s performance was ineffective. The entire service record of the petitioner would disclose that the petitioner has been always graded ‘fair’ and ‘good’ and the Review Committee without considering these aspects, has rejected the review on the grounds which are not germane on the service record of the petitioner. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the decision of the

¶52

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 7

¶53

2025:KER:26140

¶54

Corporation to prematurely retire the petitioner is against the Circular in Exhibit P-5 as well as the Judgments in M. S. Bindra v. Union of India and others [1998 KHC 1184] and State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999 KHC 920] .

¶55

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record some of the APARs of the petitioner which are for the years 2019 to 2022. Even the APARs cited by the petitioner from 01.01.2019 to 23.09.2019 would disclose the comment as ‘there is need for considerable improvement’ and in respect of the integrity it was mentioned that ‘adverse not reported so far’ and overall grading was given as ‘fair’ by the Reporting Officer. However, this was modified by the Reviewing Officer as ‘good’ and the same grading was given by the accepting authority. The remark column suggests that ‘there is need for considerable improvement’ . It is also said that ‘No initiative was taken. Needed continuous reminders from superiors. The work will be accumulated for continuous period and there were complaints from subordinates and peers .’ It also suggests that ‘the officer need to make improvement in many aspects.’

¶56

In respect of the APARs from 02.09.2020 to 31.12.2020, the integrity has been certified as ‘reliable’ and the grading has been

¶57

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 8

¶58

2025:KER:26140

¶59

given by the Reporting Officer as ‘good’ which has been confirmed by the Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer. In respect of the APARs from 01.01.2021 to 17.09.2021, the integrity of the petitioner has been certified as ‘reliable’ and overall grading was given as ‘good’ by the Reporting Officer which was confirmed by the Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer. In respect of the APARs from 01.01.2022 to 31.03.2022 (for a period of three months), the petitioner has been given grading ‘ very good’ by the Reporting Officer, however, the Reviewing Officer has not given overall grading, but in a scale of 1 to 10, the petitioner has been given 7.09 marks and the Accepting Officer has given 7 marks.

¶60

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner’s work and conduct cannot be said that it lacks integrity, or the petitioner has become deadwood in the organization. The submission is that no reasonable person can reach the conclusion that the petitioner has become deadwood after considering the APARs and the decision to retire her prematurely is against the settled norms and is liable to be set aside.

¶61

The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation, however, submits that the petitioner has not produced the entire APARs and if

¶62

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 9

¶63

2025:KER:26140

¶64

the APARs from 2015 onwards are considered, the overall service records of the petitioner would suggest that the petitioner has been ‘underperforming’ throughout and in several occasions her integrity has not been found ‘beyond doubt’. In the APAR for the year 2015, the comments of the Reporting Officer are as follows;

¶65

“ The officer had to be pushed for work as she is not self propelling. Due to lack of knowledge of work procedures and circulars, it is really difficult to extract work from the Officer. The Officer remained as statics collector and could not contribute any ideas in any file, of her own. A thorough training and orientation is recommended as there is no knowledge of the field operations or knowledge about operation decision. She mostly remain on leave. ’

¶66

However, the integrity was certified as ‘good’ and overall grading was given ‘fair’ which was the view of the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Officer.

¶67

The APAR of 2016 would disclose that the Reporting Officer has found the petitioner’s integrity as ‘sincere’ and overall grading was ‘good’ . However, the Reviewing Officer has noticed ‘ nothing found appreciable. She is a routine worker. Requires improvement in her skill

¶68

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 10

¶69

2025:KER:26140

¶70

and administration’ and same was concurred by the Accepting Officer. In the APAR of 2017, the Reporting Officer noted ‘there were considerable delay in processing matters which causes action from various commissions/courts. Routine performance. No initiatives. Requires continuous reminders even for routine works. Requires to improve liasoning with subordinates.’ Against integrity it was written ‘nothing adverse’ and overall grading was ‘fair’ which was also the view of the Reviewing Officer. The Reviewing Officer, in its comments, also noted ‘nothing found to be mentioned. But need to improve her performance a lot’ . Overall grading was ‘fair’ and it was accepted by the Accepting Officer. In 2018 APAR, the Reporting Officer noted ‘no initiative. Need constant reminders. Dependent upon subordinates. Many important matters delayed causing notices .’ Overall grading was given as ‘ fair’ , which was modified as ‘ good’ by the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Officer has given the overall grading ‘ fair’ .

¶71

Regulation 22(2) A (iii) of the FCI Staff Regulation, 1971 which are relevant for the purposes of decision of this case is extracted hereunder;

¶72

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 11

¶73

2025:KER:26140

¶74

“22(2)A(iii) Where the order of premature retirement is set aside by a Court of Law with specific directions in regard to regulation of the period between the date of premature retirement and the date of reinstatement and no further appeal is proposed to be filed, the aforesaid period shall be regulated in accordance with the directions of the Court.”

¶75

The work and performance of the employees is reviewed to find out the ‘deadwoods’ and ‘black sheep’ and it is found from the overall assessment of the work, conduct and service records of an employee that an employee has become deadwood, such an employee has to prematurely retire from the organization so that work and performance of the organization does not suffer because of such an employee has become deadwood or he/she is black sheep in the organization.

¶76

It is not only APARs which are required to be considered for taking a decision that whether an employee has become deadwood but, his overall work and conduct during service is required to be evaluated to reach the conclusion that whether his/her continuation in the organization would contribute to the growth of the organization or not.

¶77

This Court has taken note of the APARs of the petitioner just to find out whether the decision taken by the Reviewing Authority is

¶78

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 12

¶79

2025:KER:26140

¶80

based on the relevant criteria or it is based on irrelevant consideration. From the extract of the APARs itself, it would demonstrate that the petitioner who was holding a higher post i.e. the post of Assistant General Manager lacks initiative and needs continuous improvement. The comments in the APARs, year after year, would suggest that there was lack of any initiative on the part of the petitioner, and she has become deadwood in the organization. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the decision of the Review Committee to retire the petitioner prematurely do not suffer from any illegality or perversity which require this Court to interfere with and, thus, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

D. K. SINGH

JUDGE

Svn

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 13

¶86

2025:KER:26140

¶87

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7688/2024

¶88

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶89

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FCI HQ-E-1/5/2023-` `ESTT1(COMP.NO.156861) DATED 19/5/2023`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23/5/2023` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FCI HQ-E-1/5/2023-` `ESTTI (COMP NO.15681) DATED 06/07/2023`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `REPRESENTATION` `DATED` `21/10/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE` `1ST RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.EP-01-2021-24` `DATED 9TH JULY 2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE` `REVIEW COMMITTEE DATED NIL ALONG WITH THE NOTE` `FILED ISSUED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FCI HQ-E-1/5/2023-` `ESTT` `1-PART(2)` `(COMP.NO.198218)` `DATED` `9/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `ORDER` `NO.FCI` `HQ-E-` `1016/39/2023-ESTT` `1(COMP.NO.201006)` `DATED` `9/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `ORDER` `NO.ZO` `(N)-` `27.0032/3/2023-E-1-ZO NORTH DATED 10/10/2023` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `ORDER` `NO.` `ZO` `(N)-` `27.0032/3/2023-E-1-ZO NORTH DATED 13/10/2023` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`

¶90

W.P.(C) NO. 7688 OF 2024 14

¶91

2025:KER:26140

¶92

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ZO (N)-
27.0032/3/2023-E-1-ZO NORTH DATED 13/10/2023
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶93

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FCI HQ-E-
1016/34/2023-ESTT 1(COMP.NO.198660) DATED
9/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶94

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APAR OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 1/1/2019 TO 23/9/2019

¶95

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE APAR OF THE PETITIONER FOR
THE PERIOD FROM 2/9/2020 TO 31/12/2020

¶96

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APAR OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 1/1/2021 TO 17/9/2021

¶97

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APAR OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 1/1/2022 TO 31/3/2022

¶98

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶99

EXHIBIT R3(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.FCI HQ-E-
1016/58/2022-ESTT 1 DATED 16-01-2023 ISSUED BY
FCI HQRS.

¶100

EXHIBIT R3(B) THE TRUE COPY OF DPOT OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.25013/03/2019-ESTT.A-IV DATED 28-08-2020
ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Subhadramma T.G., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhadramma T.G., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaprasad.K Vs State of Kerala

Aneena Joseph Vs the High Court of Kerala

Anil K. Vs State of Kerala

President, Chorode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. LL-139, Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal

G.Madhusoodanan Namboothiri, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

K.C. Asokan Vs State of Kerala