Executive Instructions cannot override Statutory Rules lacking mandatory pre-litigation representation requirements for compulsory retirement.

The petitioner, a Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer in the Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers (IRSEE), was compulsorily retired in "public interest" via order dated 03.12.2019 under Rule 1802(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC).

The CAT, via judgment dated 22.02.2024, declined to adjudicate the merits and instead relegated the petitioner to file a representation before the departmental Representation Committee.

The petitioner moved the High Court; a previous judgment in this writ was set aside by the Supreme Court on 03.11.2025 due to lack of reasoning, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The petitioner argues that Rule 1802(a) provides no statutory requirement for representation and that the remedy under RBE No. 130/2019 is directory and illusory.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in law by relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy of representation instead of adjudicating the challenge to compulsory retirement on merits.

2. Whether the orders of compulsory retirement and the underlying Review Committee proceedings were based on an objective evaluation of the entire service record as required by law.

Rules 1802(a), 1803(a), and 1805(1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), Vol. II, which grant the appointing authority the absolute right to retire a railway servant in public interest but do not mandate a statutory representation process.

Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer (1992) 2 SCC 299, which established that while compulsory retirement is not a punishment, it can be interfered with if mala fide, based on no evidence, or arbitrary.

Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the exhaustion of remedies.

Principles from Bachahan Devi v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur (2008) 12 SCC 372, regarding the directory nature of the word "may" in statutes.

The Court found that Rules 1802(a) and 1803(a) of the IREC contain no statutory requirement for filing a representation against premature retirement.

It noted that RBE No. 130/2019 is an executive instruction that cannot override statutory rules, and its use of the word "may" regarding representations makes the remedy directory rather than mandatory.

The Court observed that the CAT had already exercised its discretion under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act by admitting the application and hearing it for four years; therefore, dismissing it on the ground of alternative remedy at the final stage was erroneous.

On the merits, the Court identified that crucial factual determinations—such as whether the Review Committee performed an individualized, objective assessment or whether the decision was supported by distinct evaluation—remained unaddressed by the Tribunal.

The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, quashed the CAT's judgment dated 22.02.2024, and remitted the matter to the CAT, Patna Bench, with a direction to adjudicate the original application (OA/051/01130/2019) afresh on its merits.

The Tribunal was requested to dispose of the matter within three months, with the parties directed to appear on 06.05.2026.