Compulsory retirement order passed in disregard of statutory pension and gratuity entitlements is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, Sulekha Devi, moved the High Court seeking a direction for the disposal of an appeal filed by her husband, a Police Constable, against an order of compulsory retirement dated 06.05.2022

The husband was retired in public interest after attaining 50 years of age and 30 years of service under Rule 854A of the Bihar Police Manual and Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code

The State contended that the Inspector General of Police (Respondent No. 3) had already declined to entertain the appeal, asserting a lack of jurisdiction under the relevant service rules

1. Whether the order of compulsory retirement was passed in compliance with the statutory mandates regarding retirement benefits

2. Whether the Inspector General of Police correctly interpreted the appellate/recreational provisions under Rule 854A(4) of the Bihar Police Manual

The court primarily applied Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, specifically sub-rule (b)(iii), which mandates that a government servant retired in public interest after 30 years of service or 50 years of age is entitled to a retiring pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity

It further relied on Rule 854A of the Bihar Police Manual, which governs the procedure for compulsory retirement and stipulates that while no formal appeal lies against the Head of Department's order, the Government retains the power to reconsider the matter upon representation

The Court observed that while the appointing authority has the power to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, such power is fettered by the statutory obligation to grant pensionary benefits under Rule 74(b)(iii)

In this case, although the retirement order acknowledged the husband had served 37 years and reached 57 years of age, it remained silent on his statutory entitlement to pension and gratuity

The Court found this omission to be a disregard of mandatory law, rendering the order unsustainable

Furthermore, the Court critiqued the Inspector General’s mechanical refusal to entertain the matter, noting that Rule 854A(4) provides a specific pathway for reconsideration and representation that was not properly observed

The Court quashed the retirement order dated 06.05.2022 and the subsequent communication from the Inspector General

The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, was directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order within 90 days, specifically addressing the petitioner's husband's entitlement to retiring pension and gratuity

The writ petition was allowed