Improperly constituted review committees necessitate fresh re-examination of premature retirement orders.

The applicant served as a Junior Engineer (Civil) with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)

On 29.08.2019, the respondents prematurely retired the applicant by invoking Rule 14(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

This decision was based on recommendations from a Screening and Review Committee meeting held on 02.08.2019

The applicant's subsequent representation against this retirement was rejected on 18.08.2020

The applicant challenged these orders, asserting that his case was identical to Sunil Chawla v. DDA (O.A. No. 1333/2020), which had been adjudicated by the Tribunal and later modified by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 422/2026

1. Whether the order of premature retirement and the subsequent rejection of the applicant’s representation were legally sustainable

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the same relief and procedural directions as granted by the Delhi High Court in the identical matter of Sunil Chawla v. DDA

Rule 14(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (and the corresponding FR 56(j)/Rule 48) governing the premature retirement of government servants

the principle of judicial parity, relying on the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Chawla (W.P.(C) No. 422/2026), which established that when the constitution of Review or Representation Committees is found inappropriate, the matter must be remanded for fresh consideration by properly constituted committees

The Tribunal found, and the respondents conceded, that the applicant’s case was factually and legally identical to that of Sunil Chawla, as both were processed by the same Review and Representation Committees

In the Chawla litigation, the Delhi High Court modified the Tribunal's order of reinstatement, directing instead that the case be remanded for re-examination

Since the parties in the present O.A. reached a consensus to dispose of the matter in similar terms, the Tribunal determined that the High Court's directions regarding the re-constitution of committees and the timeframe for review should be applied to the applicant to ensure legal consistency

The impugned orders were effectively modified to the extent that the matter is remanded for re-examination by the Review Committee and Representation Committee

These committees are directed to consider the applicant’s case within one month, ensuring their constitution aligns with the Tribunal's previous observations

No costs were awarded