Mandamus for Timely Disposal of Statutory Representation Against Compulsory Retirement Order.

The petitioner, a former employee of the C.R.P.F., was dismissed from service via a punishment of compulsory retirement issued by the Commandant 131 Bn C.R.P.F. on 08-07-2021

Subsequent appeals and revision petitions filed by the petitioner before the D.I.G., I.G., and Special Director General of the C.R.P.F. were rejected between 2021 and 2023

A further representation was sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, which remained pending despite several reminders

The petitioner approached the Patna High Court seeking the quashing of all adverse orders and a direction for reinstatement with consequential benefits

Whether the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the Union of India to decide upon the petitioner’s pending representation regarding his compulsory retirement.

The court applied the general principles of Administrative Law and Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empower the High Court to issue directions to public authorities to perform their statutory or administrative duties.

Specifically, the court relied on the principle that administrative representations filed before the government should not be kept pending indefinitely and must be decided within a reasonable timeframe

The Court observed that the petitioner had exhausted multiple departmental remedies, including appeals and revisions, all of which resulted in adverse orders

The petitioner’s primary contention at this stage was the inaction of the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding his final representation (Annexure-P-16)

During the proceedings, the petitioner limited his prayer to seeking a time-bound disposal of said representation rather than an immediate adjudication on the merits of the retirement order

The Counsel for the Union of India conceded that representations should not remain pending and agreed to a court-mandated deadline for a decision

Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the compulsory retirement, focusing instead on ensuring the completion of the administrative process

The Court issued a specific direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to take a formal decision on the petitioner’s representation (Annexure-P-16)

The order stipulates that this decision must be taken in accordance with the law within 90 days from the date of receipt or production of the court’s order