{"id":139565,"date":"2008-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-12-09T14:47:17","modified_gmt":"2015-12-09T09:17:17","slug":"k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n                         HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH: BILASPUR  \n\n\n                             Writ Petition No. 96 of 2000\n\n\n                      K.Selvaraj\n                               ...Petitioners\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n                  1)  The     Central      Industrial\n                       Security  Force\n\n\n                   2)  The   Inspector  General   (NS)\n                       Central   Industrial   Security\n                       Force\n\n                   3)  The     Union     of     India\n                                            ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n!   Shri  P.S. Koshy,   counsel for the petitioner.\n\n\n\n^       Shri S. K. Beriwal, Standing counsel  with Shri Ajay\n\n        Barik, counsel for the respondents.\n\n\n          SB: Hon'ble Mr.  Satish K. Agnihotri, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      Dated:05\/07\/2008<\/p>\n
:  Judgement <\/p>\n
 (Writ Petition under Article 226\/227 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
                           India)<\/p>\n
        (Passed on  this 5th  day of July, 2008)<\/p>\n
                By this  petition,  the petitioner challenges the<\/p>\n
legality and validity of the order dated 29-6-2000 (Annexure<\/p>\n
P\/1),  whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired  with<\/p>\n
immediate effect after attaining the age of 50 years on 31-5-<\/p>\n
1999  and the order dated 29-10-2000 (Annexure P\/2), whereby <\/p>\n
his  representation against the impugned order  dated  29-6-<\/p>\n
2000 was rejected by the respondent No.1.<\/p>\n
2)    The  facts, in brief,  as projected by the petitioner,<\/p>\n
are  that  the  petitioner  joined  the  Central  Industrial<\/p>\n
Security  Force  (for short, “CISF”) in  the  year  1975  as<\/p>\n
Assistant  Sub-Inspector (Executive).  In the year  1986  he<\/p>\n
was  promoted  to  the  post  of Sub-Inspector  (Executive).<\/p>\n
Further,   he  was   promoted  to  the  post  of   Inspector<\/p>\n
(Executive)  in the year 1993.  The petitioner had  received<\/p>\n
eight  cash  awards  and thirteen commendation  for  various<\/p>\n
activities.   There  was no adverse  entry  in  his  service<\/p>\n
record  as  nothing was communicated to him.  A charge-sheet <\/p>\n
was issued in the year 1985,    resulting into imposition of<\/p>\n
removal from  service on 3-2-1986, the same  was  set  aside<\/p>\n
by   the High Court of Madras in  Writ Petition No. 1659  of<\/p>\n
1986.   The imposition  of withholding of  one increment  in<\/p>\n
the  year  1996 was also quashed in appeal by the Commandant  <\/p>\n
V.S.C.C.,  Thumba.   The  petitioner received  the  impugned<\/p>\n
order  dated 29-6-2000 compulsorily retiring him  under  the<\/p>\n
provisions of  the Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules (for<\/p>\n
Short, “FR”),  by the respondent No.2.  Being aggrieved, the<\/p>\n
petitioner  made  a representation to the  respondent  No.1.<\/p>\n
The  same  was  rejected by the respondent No.1   under  the<\/p>\n
signature of  Assistant Inspector General\/Estt.  Thus,  this<\/p>\n
petition impugning the above stated orders.<\/p>\n
3)    Mr.  P.S.  Koshy, learned counsel  appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner would submit that the provisions of Rule  56  (j)<\/p>\n
of  FR   applies to the Government servants and not  to  the<\/p>\n
members of the armed forces as the petitioner is a member of<\/p>\n
CSIF  which  came  into force under the provisions  of   the<\/p>\n
Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, “the<\/p>\n
Act,  1968).    Under the provisions of Section   3  of  the<\/p>\n
Act,  1968  CISF would  constitute as an armed force of  the<\/p>\n
Union.  In  exercise  of  the power  under  the  Act,  1968,<\/p>\n
Central Industrial Security  Force  Rules, 1969  (for short,<\/p>\n
“the  Rules 1969”)  were framed.  There is no provision  for<\/p>\n
premature retirement  on attaining the age of 50 years under<\/p>\n
the  Act,  1968 and the Rules 1969.  The petitioner,   being<\/p>\n
holder  of the post of Inspector,  comes in the grade “Group<\/p>\n
-C  Non-gazetted”,  therefore, the provision  of  sub-clause<\/p>\n
(ii)  of  FR 56 (j) would be applicable.  Grade -C employees<\/p>\n
may  be retired prematurely after  attaining the age  of  55<\/p>\n
years.    It appears that the petitioner has been classified<\/p>\n
as  Grade  -B., after notification dated 20-4-1998 (Annexure<\/p>\n
P\/5)  issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances<\/p>\n
and    Pensions    came  into  force   which  provides   for<\/p>\n
classification  of  the posts in respect  of  Central  Civil<\/p>\n
posts.   The  petitioner is a promotee and has not   entered<\/p>\n
into   Group  –  B  service  directly.  Under  the   Central<\/p>\n
Government  Group   Insurance  Saving  Fund  (CGGISF)    the<\/p>\n
petitioner  is a subscriber   under Group – C   and  he  was<\/p>\n
paying   his contribution at the rate of Rs.60\/-  per  month<\/p>\n
(Annexure  P\/6).  The petitioner could have been  considered<\/p>\n
for  compulsory retirement only after he attains the age  of<\/p>\n
55  years.  The petitioner could have been retired  only  in<\/p>\n
public interest,  if his service records  were bad and   his<\/p>\n
integrity  was doubtful. There was no adverse entry  in  the<\/p>\n
entire  service of the petitioner.  Even if a classification<\/p>\n
of  the  Civil posts are made applicable to the  members  of<\/p>\n
CISF, the petitioner would fall in Group-C as the petitioner<\/p>\n
was  working  at that time on the pay scale of  Rs.6500\/-  –<\/p>\n
9000\/-.   Even if the petitioner was to retire on  attaining<\/p>\n
the  age  of 50 years, the review  must be done  six  months<\/p>\n
before  the  Government servant  attains  the age  of  50\/55<\/p>\n
years,  whichever  is earlier.  The date  of  birth  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner is 1-6-1949.  The petitioner  attained  the   age<\/p>\n
of  50  years on 31-5-1999 and the impugned order was passed <\/p>\n
on 29-6-2000.  In case of the petitioner, his service record<\/p>\n
reviewed after he attained the age of 50 years which is  not<\/p>\n
permissible under law.  The respondents in their  additional<\/p>\n
reply    dated  16-6-2008  have  admitted  that  the  review<\/p>\n
committee to  consider the case of the petitioner  was  held<\/p>\n
on  23-6-2000  after the petitioner crossed the  age  of  51<\/p>\n
years as the petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 31-5-<\/p>\n
1999.   The petitioner had received five  very good entries,<\/p>\n
2  good entries and 2 average entries in his last ten  years<\/p>\n
confidential  reports.  The petitioner was  further  granted<\/p>\n
promotion  in the year 1993 within a period of  seven  years<\/p>\n
from the date of the order.  The petitioner was granted very<\/p>\n
good  in  the ACR for the year 2000.  Learned counsel  would<\/p>\n
further  submit  that  the impugned  order  deserves  to  be<\/p>\n
quashed  on account of the fact that the orders are  not  in<\/p>\n
conformity with the provisions of law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4)     Per  contra,  Shri  S.K.  Beriwal,   learned  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing  for  the  respondents  would  submit  that    the<\/p>\n
petitioner  attained the age 50 years on 31-5-1999  when  he<\/p>\n
was holding the post of Inspector.  The post of Inspector in<\/p>\n
the  force  including CISF  has been classified  as “General<\/p>\n
Central Services Group `B’ Non-Gazetted”  as notified by the<\/p>\n
Ministry  of Home Affairs dated 18-5-1999  with effect  from<\/p>\n
10-10-1997.   This was notified in the Gazette on  25-1-2000<\/p>\n
(Annexure  R\/2).   The  respondents  framed  guidelines   to<\/p>\n
strengthen  the administration  on 16-8-1999 (Annexure R\/3),<\/p>\n
wherein it was stated that in case of   Inspectors of  CISF,<\/p>\n
the  review  under FR 56 (j) is required to   adjudge  their<\/p>\n
suitability for further continuance in service or  otherwise<\/p>\n
after completion of 30 years of qualifying  service  on  the<\/p>\n
basis  of entire service records including  records  of  the<\/p>\n
preceding  five  years.    The case of  the  petitioner  was<\/p>\n
considered  after  he  attained the  age  of  50  years  for<\/p>\n
premature retirement with effect from  4-7-2000.     Rule 70<\/p>\n
of  the  CISF  Rules, 1969 stipulates that  the  supervisory<\/p>\n
officers and members of the Force shall, in respect  of  all<\/p>\n
other  matters regarding conditions of service for which  no<\/p>\n
provision or insufficient provision has been made  in  these<\/p>\n
rules, be governed by the rules and order for the time being<\/p>\n
applicable  to officers holding corresponding posts  in  the<\/p>\n
Central  Government in respect of such  matters.     Learned<\/p>\n
counsel further submits that FR 56 (j) (i) provides that  if<\/p>\n
the  employee  is  in  Group A or B service  or  post  in  a<\/p>\n
substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity  and  had<\/p>\n
entered government  service before attaining the age  of  35<\/p>\n
years,  he,  in public interest, may be prematurely  retired<\/p>\n
after attaining the age of 50 years.    Thus, the contention<\/p>\n
of  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner   that<\/p>\n
services  of  the petitioner ought to have been reviewed  on<\/p>\n
attaining  the  age  of  55  years,  is  misconceived.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner joined service in CISF as Assistant Sub-Inspector<\/p>\n
(Executive)  on 24-3-1975.  The petitioner was  promoted  to<\/p>\n
the  rank  of  Inspector in the year 1993.   The  petitioner<\/p>\n
during  his  service career was punished  as many  as  seven<\/p>\n
times  for his various acts, omissions and misconducts,  the<\/p>\n
details  of which are as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  `Censure’  was  imposed  for  violation  of
\n          CISF  Rules  1969 for attempting  to  bring
\n          political influence upon the superiors  for
\n          cancellation   of  posting   on   23-4-1984
\n          (Annexure R VI).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii  Punishment  of  stoppage of  increment  for
\n     )    one year for non reporting on  his duty  at
\n          MAPP,    Kalpakkam   on   12-12-1983    and
\n          assaulting  one civilian vide  order  dated
\n          14-6-1984 (Annexure VII).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii  Punishment  of  stoppage of  increment  for\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     i)   one   year  for  overstay  from  leave  and
\n          joining  time  vide order  dated  19-5-1992
\n          (Annexure R\/VIII).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv  Imposition   of  punishment  of   `Censure’
\n     )    again    by   order   dated    20\/21-4-1995
\n          (Annexure R\/IX).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v)  Imposition  of punishment of censure  again
\n          by order dated 8-5-1997 (Annexure R\/X).
\n     (vi  Imposition  of  punishment  of   pay   fine
\n     )    equal  to 2 days pay by order dated  21-10-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          1997 (Annexure R\/XI).<\/p>\n
     Apart from the above, during the entire service career,<\/p>\n
12  annual confidential reports of the petitioner were found<\/p>\n
average.;\n<\/p>\n
          1975 to 1983-average,<\/p>\n
          1994-very good,<\/p>\n
          1995- good,<\/p>\n
          1996- average.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          1997- average,<\/p>\n
          1998 (1.1.1998 to 30.4.1981) -average,<\/p>\n
          1998    (1.5.1998   to   31.5.1981)-non-initiation<\/p>\n
     certificate and<\/p>\n
          1998 (.1.6.1998 to 31.12.1998) -very good.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5)    The  petitioner was found negligent  on  duties.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner was removed from service for serious mis-conduct,<\/p>\n
later  on  removal order was quashed by the  High  Court  of<\/p>\n
Madras in Writ Petition No.1885\/87 and the petitioner was re-<\/p>\n
instated in service.  The  representation of  the petitioner<\/p>\n
was considered and it was found that premature retirement of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner  from service in public  interest   was   in<\/p>\n
accordance  with the provisions of FR 56 (j).   Subscription<\/p>\n
towards  Group Insurance Savings  has nothing   to  do  with<\/p>\n
classification   of   CISF Inspectors  as  they  fall  under<\/p>\n
category of “Group-B   Non-Gazetted Central Services”.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner  was  prematurely retired on  the  basis  of  his<\/p>\n
service  record and on the ground of ineffectiveness,    and<\/p>\n
not as a measure of punishment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6)    Under  the  provisions of FR 56 (j)   the   review  of<\/p>\n
service    was  to  be done six months before  a  government<\/p>\n
servant  attains the age of 50 years and as such  review  of<\/p>\n
the services of the petitioner became due  in May, 1999.  On<\/p>\n
receipt of the fresh notification the superannuation  review<\/p>\n
of  the  petitioner was held on 23-6-2000 and the petitioner<\/p>\n
prematurely retired on 29-6-2000 at the age of 51 years , on<\/p>\n
being  found  unfit  for  further retention  in   Government<\/p>\n
service.   Since the post of Inspector was re-classified  as<\/p>\n
“Group-B” vide notification dated 18-5-1999 (Annexure  R\/1),<\/p>\n
by  that time the petitioner had already crossed the age  of<\/p>\n
50  years,  which  was otherwise the age  of  superannuation<\/p>\n
review  of    Group  -B posts.  Services of  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
could  not have been reviewed as above,   till  the  age  of<\/p>\n
superannuation,  if  this was not   done  at  the  earliest,<\/p>\n
after classification of  the post of Inspector as Group  -B.<\/p>\n
Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n
7)   I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,<\/p>\n
perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.  <\/p>\n
8)    It  is  evident  that the case of the  petitioner  was<\/p>\n
considered  for review superannuation after he attained  the<\/p>\n
age  of  50 years on 31-5-1999 on 23-6-2000 and the impugned<\/p>\n
order  retiring the petitioner prematurely was passed on 29-<\/p>\n
6-2000.   The petitioner was holding “Group -C”  post   till<\/p>\n
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, issued  a<\/p>\n
circular  dated  18-5-99   (Annexure  R\/1),   whereby    the<\/p>\n
Inspector  carrying  pay scale of Rs.6500\/- to 10,500\/-  was<\/p>\n
classified  as  “General  Central Services  Group  “B”  Non-<\/p>\n
Gazetted”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9)    The circular dated 18-5-99  (Annexure R\/1)  issued  by<\/p>\n
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, reads  as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
“To<\/p>\n
New Delhi, the 18th May 98.\n<\/p>\n
      1.   DG,  ITB Police.\n<\/p>\n
2.   DG, CRPF.\n<\/p>\n
3.   DG, BSF\n<\/p>\n
4.   DG., CISF.\n<\/p>\n
5.   DG, NSG.\n<\/p>\n
Sub: Classification of posts:-\n<\/p>\n
Sir,<\/p>\n
     I am directed to refer to Ministry of Personnel, Public<\/p>\n
Grievance  &  Pension, Deptt. of Personnel & Training   O.M.<\/p>\n
No.13012\/1\/98-Estt (D) dated 12th June 1998, and to say that<\/p>\n
a   review  has  been  undertaken  for  classifying  various<\/p>\n
categories  on Non-gazetted Combatised posts in the  Central<\/p>\n
Para Military Forces of the revised norms of pay scales\/ pay<\/p>\n
ranges notified in the Official Gazette vide SO-332(E) dated<\/p>\n
20th  April  1998  of  the Deptt. of  Personnel  &  Training<\/p>\n
Notification.   It  has  now been decided  to  classify  the<\/p>\n
following categories of posts in the Combatised rank  w.e.f.<\/p>\n
10-10-97 as indicated against each:-\n<\/p>\n
  S.N  Designation of Post        Classification of Post
\n  o.\n<\/p>\n
  (i)  Subedar   Major   carrying General  Central Services
\n       scale  of  pay of Rs.6500- Group `B’ Non-Gazetted.\n<\/p>\n
       10500     plus     Rs.200-\n       Apptt.pay.\n<\/pre>\n
  (ii  Inspector  carrying  scale General  Central Services
\n  )    of pay of Rs.6500-10500    Group `B’ Non-Gazetted.
\n  (ii  Sub-Inspector     carrying General  Central Services\n<\/p>\n
  i)   scale  of  pay of Rs.5500- Group `C’.<\/p>\n
\n       9000<\/span>\n  (iv  Asstt.       Sub-Inspector General  Central Services\n  )    carrying scale of  pay  of Group `C'\n       Rs.4000-6000\n<\/pre>\n
  (v)  Head   Constable  carrying General  Central Services
\n       scale  of  pay of Rs.3200- Group `C’.\n<\/p>\n
       4900<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  (vi  Constable  carrying  scale General  Central Services
\n  )    of pay of Rs.3050-4500     Group `C’.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   This issues with the concurrence of Deptt. of Personnel<\/p>\n
& Training vide their Dy.No.177\/JS(E)\/98 dated 24.11.98.<\/p>\n
Sd\/-”\n<\/p>\n
10)  The aforesaid notification was published in the Gazette<\/p>\n
notification  dated  25.1.2000 in exercise  of  power  under<\/p>\n
Article  309  of the Constitution  of India (Annexure  R\/2).<\/p>\n
The  petitioner attained the age of 50 years  on  31-5-1999.<\/p>\n
The case  of the petitioner could not be reviewed as till 18-<\/p>\n
5-1999 the petitioner,  being Inspector,  was classified  as<\/p>\n
“Group  -C”  employee.  For “Group -C”  employees,   age  of<\/p>\n
compulsory  retirement was  55 years.   The  office  of  the<\/p>\n
Directorate  General,  CISF  by  circular  dated   18-8-1999<\/p>\n
observed  that   review  under FR 56  (j)  in  the  case  of<\/p>\n
Inspectors  CISF  was required to be made to  adjudge  their<\/p>\n
suitability for further continuance in service or  otherwise<\/p>\n
after completion of 30 years of qualifying service or beyond<\/p>\n
the  age  of  50  years if they have entered  in  Government<\/p>\n
service  before attaining the age of 35 years.  However,  in<\/p>\n
case,   any of them has entered in  Government service after<\/p>\n
attaining   the  age  of  35  years,  his  suitability   for<\/p>\n
continuance  in  service  or otherwise will continue  to  be<\/p>\n
assessed at the age of 55 years.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11)  Since the petitioner had already attained the age of 50<\/p>\n
years  before circular dated 18-5-1999 came into force,  the<\/p>\n
case  of  the  petitioner  was reviewed  for  adjudging  his<\/p>\n
suitability  for continuance in service or  otherwise.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner  has  suppressed material facts  with  regard  to<\/p>\n
imposition of various punishments as detailed in the  return<\/p>\n
filed  by the respondents.  After having considered  various<\/p>\n
punishments imposed on the petitioner from time to time  and<\/p>\n
adverse   entries   in  his  ACR,  it   appears   that   the<\/p>\n
consideration was bona fide,   in public interest,  and  not<\/p>\n
for  collateral  purposes.   The petitioner  has  failed  to<\/p>\n
establish any mala fide  or any error in the decision of the<\/p>\n
Review  Committee  which decided to  retire  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
prematurely.   The petitioner has not rebutted the  averment<\/p>\n
made  by  the respondents  in return with regard to  various<\/p>\n
punishments imposed on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12)   The  contention of the petitioner  that    Fundamental<\/p>\n
Rules  are not applicable to the Inspectors of CISF as  CISF<\/p>\n
is an armed force as constituted under the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Act,  1968, deserves to be rejected as Section  22   of  the<\/p>\n
Act,  1968  empowers the Central Government to  make  rules,<\/p>\n
regulating  the classes, ranks, grades, pay and remuneration<\/p>\n
of  members of the Force and their conditions of service  in<\/p>\n
the  Force.  In exercise of power under Section  22  of  the<\/p>\n
Act,  1968,  Rules  1969 were framed.  Rule  70,  which  was<\/p>\n
incorporated by amendment on 3-6-1979,  reads as under: <\/p>\n
          “70.  Other  conditions of  service.-  The
\n          supervisory  officers and members  of  the
\n          Force  shall,  in  respect  of  all  other
\n          matters  regarding conditions  of  service
\n          for  which  no  provision or  insufficient
\n          provision has been made in these rules, be
\n          governed  by the rules and order  for  the
\n          time  being applicable to officers holding
\n          corresponding   posts   in   the   Central
\n          Government in respect of such matters.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13)   Thus, Fundamental Rules  are  applicable  in  respect<\/p>\n
of  premature retirement as there is no provision under the<\/p>\n
provisions  of the Act, 1968 and the   Rules  1969.   Rules<\/p>\n
1969  were later on repealed  by the  CISF Rules  2001 with<\/p>\n
effect  from 5-11-2001.  In the case  in hand,  Rules  1969<\/p>\n
would be applicable.  Thus, services of the petitioner were<\/p>\n
rightly  reviewed under FR 56 (j).    Whether the  services<\/p>\n
of the petitioner can be reviewed after he attained the age<\/p>\n
of  50  years, as in normal case,  the same should be  done<\/p>\n
six months before a Government  servant attains the age  of<\/p>\n
50\/55 years.  In the present case  since the petitioner was<\/p>\n
classified   in    “Grade   -C”,   wherein   the   age   of<\/p>\n
superannuation   review   was   55   years.    After    re-<\/p>\n
classification  of  the  Inspector (petitioner)   by  order<\/p>\n
dated  18-5-1999 the age of superannuation  review  was  50<\/p>\n
years.     By   that time, the  petitioner crossed the  age<\/p>\n
of  superannuation  review i.e.,50 years   just  one  month<\/p>\n
before.  Thus, it was  deemed proper to consider  his  case<\/p>\n
immediately   and   the  impugned  order  dated   29-6-2000<\/p>\n
(Annexure  P\/1)  retiring  the petitioner  prematurely  was<\/p>\n
passed.    In case the petitioner was not reviewed after 50<\/p>\n
years,  the  case  of  the petitioner,  being    Grade  `B’<\/p>\n
officer,  could not have been reviewed at  the  age  of  55<\/p>\n
years.   The  petitioner joined service in  the  year  1975<\/p>\n
before he attained the age of 35 years.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14)  I am thus, constrained to hold that there was no error<\/p>\n
in   considering   the   case   of   the   petitioner   for<\/p>\n
superannuation  review  after he attained  the  age  of  50<\/p>\n
years.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15)   In the matter of Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India<\/p>\n
and  others1  cited  by learned counsel appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner,  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  respect   of<\/p>\n
voluntary  retirement observed (para 16)  that  “Any  order<\/p>\n
which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or<\/p>\n
ignoring,  willfully or otherwise, vital facts  bearing  on<\/p>\n
the  decision  is bad in law.  Likewise, any  action  which<\/p>\n
irrationally digs up obsolete circumstances and obsessively<\/p>\n
reaches  a  decision  based thereon, cannot  be  sustained.<\/p>\n
Legality  depends   on regard of the totality  of  material<\/p>\n
facts viewed in a holistic perspective”.<\/p>\n
16)   The  decision  of Delhi High Court in the  matter  of<\/p>\n
V.K. Issar Vs. Union of India and others2  cited by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner is not relevant to the facts  of<\/p>\n
the   present  case  as  the  High  Court  held  that   the<\/p>\n
respondents cannot be permitted to compulsorily retire  the<\/p>\n
employee  on the basis of remote ACRs when nothing  adverse  <\/p>\n
was found after 1992.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17)   In the present case  the respondents have established<\/p>\n
that the entry in the ACRs was throughout  adverse  in case<\/p>\n
of  the petitioner and he was imposed punishment on several<\/p>\n
occasions for his ineffectiveness.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18)   In the present case,  the allegations leveled by  the<\/p>\n
respondents  in  the return indicating various  punishments<\/p>\n
imposed on the petitioner was not refuted by the petitioner<\/p>\n
and on the facts,   it should be deemed to have been proved<\/p>\n
and correct.  Law is well settled that Review Committee has<\/p>\n
to take overall service record in holistic approach.<\/p>\n
19)  In the matter of Union of India Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and<\/p>\n
another3,  the Supreme Court, observed as under :<\/p>\n
           “9.  Now  coming  to the express  words  of
\n           Fundamental  Rule 56(j) it  says  that  the
\n           appropriate  authority  has  the   absolute
\n           right to retire a government servant if  it
\n           is  of the opinion that it is in the public
\n           interest  to do so. The right conferred  on
\n           the  appropriate authority is  an  absolute
\n           one. That power can be exercised subject to
\n           the  conditions mentioned in the rule,  one
\n           of  which  is that the concerned  authority
\n           must be of the opinion that it is in public
\n           interest  to do so. If that authority  bona
\n           fide forms that opinion, the correctness of
\n           that  opinion  cannot be challenged  before
\n           courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to
\n           contend that the requisite opinion has  not
\n           been  formed  or the decision is  based  on
\n           collateral  grounds  or  that  it   is   an
\n           arbitrary   decision.  The  1st  respondent
\n           challenged  the  opinion  formed   by   the
\n           Government on the ground of mala fide.  But
\n           that ground has failed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20)   The  dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in<\/p>\n
the matter of Union of India Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and another<\/p>\n
(supra),  has been followed by a Constitutional Bench of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble  Supreme  Court in the matter of   R.L.  Butail  Vs.<\/p>\n
Union  of  India  and others4. The ratio laid  down  by  the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble  Supreme  Court in both the  cases  with  regard  to<\/p>\n
compulsory retirement vis–vis applicability of  FR-56  (j)<\/p>\n
have  been consistently followed in several other decisions.<\/p>\n
(see,  Mayongbam Radhamohan Singh Vs. The Chief Commissioner      <\/p>\n
(Administrator), Manpur and others5 )<\/p>\n
21)   In  the matter of  Union of India Vs. M.E.  Reddy  and<\/p>\n
another6,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court, again relying  on  the<\/p>\n
decision   in  the  matter of Col. J.N.  Sinha  and  another<\/p>\n
(supra),  observed as under –\n<\/p>\n
           “The observations made above clearly reveal
\n           the  object of this rule and lay down  that
\n           where  an  officer concerned is of doubtful
\n           integrity  he  can be compulsorily  retired
\n           under this rule.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   And further,
\n           “We have already pointed out relying on the
\n           dictum   of   this  Court  laid   down   by
\n           Hidayatullah,  C.J., that the  confidential
\n           reports can certainly be considered by  the
\n           appointing authority in passing  the  order
\n           of   retirement  even  if  they   are   not
\n           communicated  to  the  officer   concerned.
\n           Thus, the two grounds on which the Calcutta
\n           decision  was based are not supportable  in
\n           law.  For these reasons, therefore, we hold
\n           that  the  decision  of the  Calcutta  High
\n           Court referred to above was wrongly decided
\n           and is hereby overruled.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
22)   In the matter of C.D. Ailawadi Vs. Union of India  and<\/p>\n
others7 the Supreme Court observed as under- <\/p>\n
           “8.   An   aggrieved  civil   servant   can
\n           challenge an order of compulsory retirement
\n           on  any of the following grounds as settled
\n           by  several  decisions of this  Court:  (i)
\n           that  the  requisite opinion has  not  been
\n           formed; or (ii) that the decision is  based
\n           on  collateral grounds; or (iii) that it is
\n           an arbitrary decision. In Union of India v.
\n           Col. J.N. Sinha<\/a> this Court held that if the
\n           civil servant is able to establish that the
\n           order  of  compulsory  retirement  suffered
\n           from  any  of  the  above infirmities,  the
\n           court  has jurisdiction to quash the  same.
\n           It   is   not   disputed  that   compulsory
\n           retirement  under  Rule  56(j)  is  not   a
\n           punishment as it does not take away any  of
\n           the  past  benefits. Chopping off the  dead
\n           wood is one of the important considerations
\n           for  invoking Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental
\n           Rules. In the instant case, on the basis of
\n           the  service  record, the Committee  formed
\n           the  requisite opinion that the  petitioner
\n           had  ceased  to  be useful and,  therefore,
\n           should  be retired prematurely. We  do  not
\n           think petitioner has been able to place any
\n           satisfactory  material for  the  contention
\n           that   the   decision  was  on   collateral
\n           grounds. Once the opinion is reached on the
\n           basis  of  materials on record,  the  order
\n           cannot be treated to be arbitrary”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
23)   In  the matter of Union of India Vs. Dulal Dutt8,  the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court observed as under-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “An  order of compulsory retirement has  to
\n           be  passed by the Government on forming the
\n           opinion  that it is in the public  interest
\n           to     retire    a    Government    servant
\n           compulsorily.  The order is passed  on  the
\n           subjective  satisfaction of the Government.
\n           The Government (or the Review Committee, as
\n           the case may be) shall have to consider the
\n           entire  record of service before  taking  a
\n           decision   in  the  matter  –   of   course
\n           attaching more importance to record of  and
\n           performance  during the  later  years.  The
\n           record  to be so considered would naturally
\n           include  the  entries in  the  confidential
\n           records\/character  rolls,  both  favourable
\n           and  adverse.  There may be any  number  of
\n           remarks,  observations and comments,  which
\n           do  not constitute adverse remarks, but are
\n           yet relevant for the purpose of FR 56(j) or
\n           a rule corresponding to it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           And further,
\n           “An order of compulsory retirement is not a
\n           punishment.  It implies no stigma  nor  any
\n           suggestion  of misbehaviour. Principles  of
\n           natural  justice  have  no  place  in   the
\n           context   of   an   order   of   compulsory
\n           retirement.   Since  the  nature   of   the
\n           function  is not quasi-judicial  in  nature
\n           and  because the action has to be taken  on
\n           the    subjective   satisfaction   of   the
\n           Government, there is no room for  importing
\n           the audi alteram partem rule of the natural
\n           justice in such a case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (see- Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District
\n           Medical Officer, Baripada9<\/a> )<\/p>\n
24).  In  the  matter  of K. Kandaswamy  v.  Union  of<\/p>\n
India10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/a> observed as under-<\/p>\n
           “9.  While exercising the power under  Rule
\n           56(j)   of   the  Fundamental  Rules,   the
\n           appropriate authority has to weigh  several
\n           circumstances in arriving at the conclusion
\n           that   the   employee   requires   to    be
\n           compulsorily  retired in  public  interest.
\n           The  Government is given power to  energise
\n           its  machinery  by weeding out  dead  wood,
\n           inefficient, corrupt and people of doubtful
\n           integrity  by  compulsorily  retiring  them
\n           from    service.   When   the   appropriate
\n           authority  forms  bona  fide  opinion  that
\n           compulsory  retirement  of  the  government
\n           employee  is in the public interest,  court
\n           would not interfere with the order”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
25)   In  the  matter of    State of U.P.  v.  Vijay  Kumar<\/p>\n
Jain11, the Supreme Court<\/a> observed as under- <\/p>\n
           “15.  The  aforesaid decisions unmistakably
\n           lay down that the entire service record  of
\n           a government servant could be considered by
\n           the  Government while exercising the  power
\n           under  FR  56(c) of the Rules with emphasis
\n           on the later entries. FR 56(c) of the Rules
\n           read  with  Explanation (2),  empowers  the
\n           State Government with an absolute right  to
\n           retire an employee on attaining the age  of
\n           50  years. It cannot be disputed  that  the
\n           dead  wood  need to be removed to  maintain
\n           efficiency in the service. Integrity  of  a
\n           government     employee     is     foremost
\n           consideration  in  public  service.  If   a
\n           conduct  of  a government employee  becomes
\n           unbecoming   to  the  public  interest   or
\n           obstructs   the   efficiency   in    public
\n           services,  the Government has  an  absolute
\n           right   to  compulsorily  retire  such   an
\n           employee    in    public   interest.    The
\n           Government’s  right to compulsorily  retire
\n           an   employee   is  a  method   to   ensure
\n           efficiency  in  public  service  and  while
\n           doing  so the Government is entitled  under
\n           Fundamental  Rule 56 to take  into  account
\n           the  entire service record, character  roll
\n           or confidential report with emphasis on the
\n           later  entries in the character roll of  an
\n           employee.  In fact, entire service  record,
\n           character   roll  or  confidential   report
\n           furnishes  the  materials to the  Screening
\n           Committee or the State Government,  as  the
\n           case   may  be,  to  find  out  whether   a
\n           government servant has outlived his utility
\n           in  service.  It  is  on  consideration  of
\n           totality of the materials with emphasis  on
\n           the  later  entries in the character  roll,
\n           the  Government  is expected  to  form  its
\n           opinion  whether  an  employee  is  to   be
\n           compulsorily retired or not.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           16.   Withholding   of   integrity   of   a
\n           government employee is a serious matter. In
\n           the  present case, what we find is that the
\n           integrity of the respondent was withheld by
\n           an order dated 13-6-1997 and the said entry
\n           in the character roll of the respondent was
\n           well  within  ten years of passing  of  the
\n           order   of  compulsory  retirement.  During
\n           pendency  of the writ petition in the  High
\n           Court,  the  U.P. Services  Tribunal  on  a
\n           claim  petition  filed by  the  respondent,
\n           shifted  the entry from 1997-98 to 1983-84.
\n           Shifting  of the said entry to a  different
\n           period  or entry going beyond ten years  of
\n           passing   of   the  order   of   compulsory
\n           retirement  does not mean that  vigour  and
\n           sting  of the adverse entry is lost. Vigour
\n           or  sting of an adverse entry is not  wiped
\n           out, merely it is relatable to 11th or 12th
\n           year  of passing of the order of compulsory
\n           retirement.  The  aforesaid  adverse  entry
\n           which  could  have been taken into  account
\n           while   considering   the   case   of   the
\n           respondent  for  his compulsory  retirement
\n           from  service, was duly considered  by  the
\n           State   Government  and  the  said   single
\n           adverse  entry in itself was sufficient  to
\n           compulsorily  retire  the  respondent  from
\n           service.  We  are, therefore, of  the  view
\n           that  entire service record or confidential
\n           report  with emphasis on the later  entries
\n           in  the  character roll can be  taken  into
\n           account by the Government while considering
\n           a  case  for  compulsory  retirement  of  a
\n           government servant”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
26)         So  far as the case in hand and the  matter  in<\/p>\n
dispute  is  concerned,  it  is  necessary  to  quote   the<\/p>\n
Fundamental Rule 56 (j) which  reads as under:<\/p>\n
           “56(j) Notwithstanding anything contained
\n           in  this  rule, the Appropriate Authority
\n           shall, if it is of the opinion that it is
\n           in the public interest so to do, have the
\n           absolute  right to retire any  Government
\n           servant by giving him notice of not  less
\n           than  three  months in writing  or  three
\n           months pay and allowances in lieu of such
\n           notice:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (i)  If he is, in Group `A’ or Group `B’ service or post in
\n           a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had
\n           entered Government service before attaining the age of 35
\n           years, after he has attained the age of 50 years;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(ii) In any other case, after he has attained the age of
\nfifty-five years.”\n<\/p>\n
27)  FR 56  (j) contemplates premature retirement after  an<\/p>\n
employee in Group `A’ or Group `B’ has attained the age  of<\/p>\n
50  years when he has entered into service before attaining<\/p>\n
the  age of 35 years.  In the present case, the case of the<\/p>\n
petitioner  was considered after attaining the  age  of  50<\/p>\n
years  and  there is no condition in FR 56 (j) that  review<\/p>\n
should  be  done six months before  the Government  servant<\/p>\n
attains  the  age of 50 years.  The common  thread  running<\/p>\n
into  the  decisions cited above clearly shows that,  if  a<\/p>\n
conduct of a Government employee becomes unbecoming, in the    <\/p>\n
public  interest  or   obstructs the efficiency  of  public<\/p>\n
services,   the  government  has  an  absolute   right   to<\/p>\n
compulsory retire such an employee in public interest.   In<\/p>\n
the  present  case,  it is not the case of  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
that, there was any malafide in the order or the order  was<\/p>\n
not  in  public interest or it was for collateral  purpose.<\/p>\n
Thus,  I  am  constrained to hold that the  impugned  order<\/p>\n
retiring  the petitioner prematurely is bona  fide  and  in<\/p>\n
public interest.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28)    For  the  reasons  hereinabove,  this  petition   is<\/p>\n
dismissed.  Costs easy.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 96 of 2000 K.Selvaraj …Petitioners Versus 1) The Central Industrial Security Force 2) The Inspector General (NS) Central Industrial Security Force 3) The Union of India …Respondents ! Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-09T09:17:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-09T09:17:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4822,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008\",\"name\":\"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-09T09:17:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-09T09:17:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-09T09:17:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008"},"wordCount":4822,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008","name":"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-09T09:17:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-selvaraj-vs-the-central-industrial-on-5-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Selvaraj vs ) The Central Industrial on 5 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139565","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139565\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}