Competent authority directed to decide the premature-retirement representation by a reasoned order within three months.

The applicant, appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Central Leather Research Institute on 2 August 2006, joined service on 14 August 2006. He subsequently remained absent on prolonged leave, attributing the absence to serious family difficulties and the need to care for his autistic child. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, but his explanation was accepted as justifiable and he was permitted to resume duty on 8 January 2015. A penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of the post for two years was thereafter imposed

In 2017, the applicant was issued a further charge memorandum alleging unsatisfactory work during the period from 8 January 2015 to 15 February 2017. By order dated 26 March 2018, one increment was withheld for three years with cumulative effect

Despite this, the respondent Institute prematurely retired him from service in the public interest with immediate effect by order dated 11 June 2026. The applicant submitted representations dated 18 June 2026 seeking reconsideration and withdrawal of the premature-retirement order. As the representations remained undecided, he filed the present OA seeking quashing of the order and reinstatement with consequential benefits

At the hearing, the applicant confined his request to a direction for consideration and disposal of his representations within a fixed time

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicant’s representations dated 18 June 2026 against the order of premature retirement

2. Whether the Tribunal should, at the admission stage, adjudicate the merits of the premature-retirement order and grant reinstatement with consequential benefits

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a representation submitted by a government employee against an adverse service order should be considered by the competent authority and decided through an appropriate, speaking, and well-reasoned order within a reasonable time

Since the applicant limited the relief sought at the hearing, the Tribunal exercised restraint and declined to examine the merits of the premature-retirement order at the admission stage

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or applied in the order

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had submitted representations dated 18 June 2026, which had not been decided by the respondents

In view of the limited relief pressed by the applicant and to secure an effective administrative decision, it directed the competent authority to consider those representations and pass a speaking and reasoned order within three months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it was not examining the merits of the premature-retirement order, the applicant’s claim of satisfactory performance, or his entitlement to reinstatement at that stage

The Tribunal did not quash the premature-retirement order, grant reinstatement, or decide the applicant’s claim for consequential benefits.