Premature retirement under FR 56(j) by an incompetent authority is void and cannot be cured by subsequent rejection.

The applicant, a 1997-batch DANICS officer appointed on 1 May 1998, claimed entitlement to Selection Grade from 1 January 2006, JAG-II from 1 January 2011, and JAG-I from 1 January 2016.

His promotions were kept under the sealed-cover procedure because of pending criminal proceedings, although his juniors were promoted.

The Delhi High Court, in W.P.(C) No. 6856/2021, held on 25 May 2023 that the sealed-cover procedure was unlawful and directed the respondents to open the sealed covers and, if the applicant was found suitable, grant him the relevant grades retrospectively, with arrears and 9% interest.

While that judgment was operative and before obtaining any stay, the respondents prematurely retired the applicant under FR 56(j) on 9 October 2023, through an order passed by the Joint Secretary (UT), MHA.

The respondents’ delayed challenge to the High Court judgment was ultimately dismissed on merits by the Supreme Court on 4 December 2024.

Subsequently, the respondents granted the applicant Selection Grade, JAG-II and JAG-I retrospectively from 1 January 2006, 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2016, respectively.

Whether the Joint Secretary (UT), MHA, was competent to prematurely retire the applicant under FR 56(j), considering his appointment by the President and his subsequent retrospective recognition as holding Group ‘A’ grades.

Whether the respondents could invoke FR 56(j) while the Delhi High Court’s judgment directing consideration and promotion of the applicant was operative and had not been stayed or set aside.

Whether the subsequent consideration and rejection of the applicant’s representation, or the disciplinary and criminal proceedings relied upon by the respondents, could cure the alleged lack of competence in the authority that passed the retirement order.

The Tribunal applied FR 56(j), which permits premature retirement only by the authority legally competent to exercise that power, and treated competence or jurisdiction as a foundational requirement of administrative action.

It applied the principle that where law requires an act to be performed in a particular manner, it must be performed in that manner alone, relying on Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, and Asha Rani Gupta v. Ravindera Memorial Public School & Anr., LPA No. 627/2018, decided on 8 October 2024.

The Tribunal further applied the rule that an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or competence cannot be validated by a subsequent appeal, representation, or approval by a higher authority.

It also relied upon the binding effect of the operative Delhi High Court judgment and the principle that administrative authorities must not act inconsistently with a subsisting judicial order.

The Tribunal held that the respondents were required to comply with the Delhi High Court’s directions within four weeks and could not retire the applicant under FR 56(j) while that judgment remained operative without first obtaining appropriate orders from the Supreme Court.

Although the respondents contended that the applicant continued to hold only the Entry Grade, allegedly a Group ‘B’ post, and that the Joint Secretary was therefore competent, their later orders retrospectively granting him Selection Grade, JAG-II and JAG-I demonstrated that he was entitled to Group ‘A’ grades from dates preceding his premature retirement.

Since the applicant had been appointed by the President and the relevant grades were Group ‘A’ posts, the Joint Secretary was not the competent authority to order his premature retirement.

The pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings could not cure this fundamental jurisdictional defect, nor could rejection of the applicant’s representation validate an order passed by an incompetent authority.

The Tribunal therefore treated the defect as going to the root of the matter.

It held that the Joint Secretary was not competent to prematurely retire the applicant under FR 56(j), particularly in view of the applicant’s retrospective entitlement to Group ‘A’ grades and the subsisting High Court judgment requiring his consideration for promotion.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant within four weeks and to grant him all consequential benefits in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.