JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The petitioner joined the. Indian Army as an Emergency Commissioned Officer on 9.2.1964. After his release therefrom in June 1969, he joined the Special Service Bureau, Directorate General of Security, Cabinet Sceretarial, as a Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 28th February, 1970. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Commandant, w.e.f. 7th November, 1985.
(2) The petitioner was further promoted to the next higher rank of Commandant, Special Grade from 12th April, 1991. The petitioner continued to be in the rank of Selection Grade Commandant till he was superannuated on 31st July, 1994.
(3) The petitioner’s main grievance in this petition is that the petitioner has been illegally and prematurely retired and superannuated by the respondent w.e.f. 31st July, 1994, at the age of 55 years. According to the petitioner, the age of retirement for Selection Grade Commandant is 58 years. It is submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of three years service which has greatly prejudiced him not only in status, pay and allowances, pensionary benefits, etc. but his prospects of further promotions have also been seriously affected.
(4) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in the government service in the Ssb in the rank of Selection Grade Commandant and to treat the period from 1.8.1994 till the date of rejoining of the petitioner in service as on duly, as leave due on full pay and allowances as Selection Grade Commandant and without any adverse effect on his seniority, continuity of service and other service conditions and to treat as if the petitioner had never retired from service w.e.f. 31..7.1994, and not to retire the petitioner till attaining the age of 58 years.
(5) The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to resume forthwith the process of completing the approval of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Deputy Inspector General forwarded by the Cabinet Secretariat vide letter dated 21.6.1994 and to promote the petitioner after receiving the necessary approval.
(6) This court issued a show cause notice to the respondents and by a subsequent order, the court also directed that relevant files be kept ready for the court’s perusal.
(7) Shri A.K. Saxena, Deputy Inspector General has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent. It is mentioned in the counter- affdavit that the post of the Commandant (Selection Grade) was introduced with a view to prevent stagnation of larger number of officers on the post of Commandant and to give them a higher scale of pay. No additional duties have been prescribed for a Commandant (Special Grade) and they performed the same duties as other Commandants. Both the posts arc of same category and of equal rank.
(8) It is mentioned that in terms of Rule 43 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955, the prescribed age of superannuation for a member of the force is 55 years. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be retired at the age of 55 years and the action of the respondents is perfectly legal and in accordance with the rules of C.R.P.F.
(9) In the counter-affidavit, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal no-5110/95, Union of India vs. S.S. Ranade. In this judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held “that a Commandant (Special Grade) docs not get the benefit of higher age of retirement under Rule 9. The appellants (Union of India), are entitled to retire the respondent (Commandant Special Grade) on his completing the age of 55 years. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, this submission of the petitioner that he is entitled to retire at the age of 58 years is totally devoid of any merit and is accordingly rejected.
(10) The other submission of the petitioner that his case has not been considered by Appointing Committee of the Cabinet, is also without any merit.
(11) This court directed the respondent to produce the original files. We have perused the original files. The matter pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Dig in Ssb in the pay-scale of Rs.5100-6150 on promotion basis was duly considered by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet and rejected. As a matter of fact, the matter had been considered at the level of the Cabinet Secretary, the Home Minister and the Prime Minister.
(12) In view of the consideration of the petitioner’s case by the Appointing Committee of the Cabinet, nothing really survives in prayer (c) of the petition, in which it has been prayed that the respondent be directed to resume forthwith the process of completing the approval of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
(13) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and the relevant files of the respondents. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition and C.M. are accordingly rejected and disposed of.
(14) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.