Disposed

State of Rajasthan v. Z.A. Khan Son of Lt. S.A. Khan

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2024CW/5093/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench considered a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order in an original application regarding compulsory retirement. The tribunal had upheld the mandatory retirement order but simultaneously directed its withdrawal due to the position becoming ineffective as the officer superannuated. The high court disposed of the petition, holding that the retirement order ha

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of on the grounds that the compulsory retirement order had become inoperative.

State of Rajasthan Vs Z.A. Khan Son… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:27407-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5093/2022

¶4

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005

¶5

The Principal Chief Conservator Forest (Head Of The Forest Force), Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 302005

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Z.A. Khan Son Of Lt. S.A. Khan, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Chitrakoot 10/62 Vaishali Nagar Jaipur (Raj.) Aplicant Holding The Post Of Chief Conservator Of Forest And Presently Posted As CCF (Establishment), Aranya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶9

Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The Department Of Personnel And Training, North Block, New Delhi 110001.

¶10

Under Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Environment, Forests And Climate Change, Indra Paryavaran Bhawan, 6Th Floor, Prithvi Wing, Jor Bag Road, Aliganj, New Delhi - 110003.

¶11

Union Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 110001.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr.Yash Joshi and Mr.Sankalp Vijay

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Tanveer Ahmed Mr.Chandra Shekhar Sinha Mr.Brijesh Kumar Gupta Mr.Rakesh Dhawan Mr.Zaid Ul Haq

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[2024:RJ-JP:27407-DB]

¶17

[CW-5093/2022]

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶19

Order

¶20

02/07/2024

¶21

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶22

This petition is filed aggrieved of the order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶23

Brief facts are that the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) was member of the Indian Forest Services and at the relevant time working as Chief Conservator Forest. On the recommendation of the Review Committee, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India exercising powers under Rule 16(3) of All India Service (DeathCum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (For brevity ‘the Rules’) ordered compulsory retirement of the respondent. Aggrieved of the order, the respondent filed Original Application (for short ‘OA’) before the Tribunal. The operation of the impugned order was stayed by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2018. The reply to the OA was filed by the respondent in May, 2019 and thereafter due to non availability of the forum and pandemic conditions, the OA was ultimately decided on 28.01.2022.

¶24

The Tribunal held that no ground for interference in the impugned order was made out. However, considering that consequent to interim order, the petitioner continued in service and on the date of decision only four days were left in the superannuation, concluded that the impugned order has been rendered ineffective. The directions were issued to the respondent

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:27407-DB]

¶26

[CW-5093/2022]

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

to withdraw the order of the compulsory retirement. Aggrieved of the decision, present petition was filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal on the one hand upheld the impugned order and on the other hand issued directions for withdrawal of the order. Contention is that for withdrawal of the order review committee will have to be reconstituted.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order. Submission is that the respondent had rendered the services and has superannuated, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the impugned order lost relevance. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner in spite of passing the order of compulsory retirement continued in service as a result of unchallenged interim protection granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2018. There is no delay attributed by the respondent in decision of the OA.

¶31

On the date of the decision of OA, only four days were left for superannuation of the respondent. The intent of removing the alleged dead-wood by compulsorily retiring the respondent had lost significance with the efflux of time. Due to operation of an interim order granted by the Tribunal, respondent rendered services & ultimately superannuated.

¶32

The contention that the Tribunal erred in issuing directions for withdrawal of the order of compulsory retirement in spite of upholding it, lacks merits. The directions of the Tribunal were duly supported by reason that the impugned order had lost utility. In other words the impugned order was inoperative with the passage of time.

¶33

[2024:RJ-JP:27407-DB]

¶34

[CW-5093/2022]

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

The grievance raised that the directions of the Tribunal for recalling of the compulsory retirement order would mean reconstituting the Reviewing Committee, deserves consideration.

¶37

The directions of the Tribunal for withdrawing the impugned order is modified to the extent that the order has been rendered inoperative with the efflux of time.

¶38

No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The issue of compulsory retirement was rendered academic as a result of unchallenged interim order being operative during pendency of OA and due to the time consumed in decision of OA. 12. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶40

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶41

Monika/Aarzoo/47

¶42

Whether Reportable:

¶43

Yes

State of Rajasthan v. Z.A. Khan Son of Lt. S.A. Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Z.A. Khan Son of Lt. S.A. Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sinex Vision Vs Commissioner, Central Excise and Cgst

Maharaja Surajmal Brij Vishwavidhalaya Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Urban Improvement Trust Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer

Vijay Kedia Son of Shri Moti Chand Kedia Vs Income Tax Officer

Anuj Kumar S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs the Income Tax Officer

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Vs Shri Rajendra Shringi