Impugned premature-retirement orders must be withdrawn, with consequential benefits and liberty to pass fresh orders.

The applicant, a SAIL General Manager, challenged orders dated 11 February 2025 and 19 March 2025.

The first prematurely retired him under Rule 4.0(3) of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977, citing inefficiency, doubtful integrity and conduct unbecoming of an employee; the second rejected his appeal against that retirement.

He sought, among other relief, reinstatement and consequential service benefits.

After pleadings were filed, SAIL’s counsel sought permission to withdraw both orders and to pass fresh orders in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

The applicant did not object.

1. Whether the challenged premature-retirement and appeal-rejection orders should be withdrawn by consent, with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders.

2. Whether the applicant should receive consequential benefits following withdrawal of the challenged orders.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The premature-retirement order invoked Rule 4.0(3) of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977.

The Tribunal did not interpret or apply that rule to determine the merits of the retirement decision; it disposed of the matter by consent, directing withdrawal of the impugned orders, consequential benefits under the relevant rules, and permitting fresh orders in accordance with the relevant rules and law.

The Tribunal did not assess whether the stated grounds for premature retirement were valid or whether the impugned orders were legally sustainable.

Instead, given the respondents’ request to withdraw the orders and the applicant’s lack of objection, it disposed of the application on consent without entering into the merits.

It directed payment of consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and preserved the respondents’ liberty to make fresh orders, subject to the applicant’s right to pursue legal remedies if aggrieved.

The respondents, particularly SAIL, were directed to withdraw the orders dated 11 February 2025 and 19 March 2025 within one week; the applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits under the relevant rules, to be released within four weeks after the withdrawal order.

The respondents were permitted to pass fresh orders in accordance with the relevant rules and law.

No order as to costs was made.