Compulsory retirement before the mandatory age threshold and without subjective satisfaction is legally unsustainable.

The Petitioner, an Assistant General Manager at the Food Corporation of India (FCI), challenged an order dated 01.05.2023 prematurely retiring him from service under Regulation 22(2) of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.

The Petitioner’s date of birth is 17.05.1973.

During his tenure, several complaints and inquiries were initiated against him, including a CBI investigation, most of which resulted in exoneration or the reduction of penalties to a minor "Censure".

At the time of the retirement order, a departmental appeal regarding a penalty of pay reduction was still pending.

The Respondents contended the retirement was in the public interest based on his overall service record and subjective satisfaction of the authority.

1. Whether the Petitioner had attained the mandatory age threshold of 50 years required to invoke the power of premature/compulsory retirement under the relevant service rules.

2. Whether the Petitioner could be classified as "deadwood" or if his retirement was justified in the "public interest" based on his cumulative service record.

The court applied Regulation 22(2) of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 and Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, both of which grant the authority an absolute right to retire an employee in the public interest provided they have attained the age of 50 years (for Category I & II/Group A & B).

It relied on *Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer* (1992) regarding the scope of judicial review in compulsory retirement.

It relied on *Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India* (2023), which established that courts may "pierce the smoke screen" to determine if a retirement order is actually a punitive measure used to short-circuit disciplinary proceedings.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s date of birth was 17.05.1973, meaning on the date of the impugned order (01.05.2023), he was only 49 years and 11 months old, thus failing the mandatory condition precedent of attaining 50 years of age.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the Petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) were consistently "Outstanding" or "Very Good".

The Court noted a pattern of "hurry and haste," concluding the Respondents issued the retirement order to bypass the pending departmental appeal.

Since the Petitioner had a meritorious record and had been exonerated in multiple inquiries (including by the CBI), the Court determined he did not constitute "deadwood" and the "public interest" doctrine was misused as a punitive tool.

It held that the order was legally unsustainable for violating the age threshold and for lacking a factual basis for "public interest".

The Court quashed the premature retirement order dated 01.05.2023 and the rejection of the representation dated 06.07.2023.

The Respondents were directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service immediately, though without back wages.