1 2025:CGHC:57359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7552 of 2023 1 - Sona Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Dharmu Ram Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o Nandi Chowk, Bakharu Para, Narayanpur - 494661, District Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Women And Child Development Department Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur - 492002, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Women And Child Development Officer District Child Protection Unit, Narayanpur Old Nagar Panchayat Bhavan, Narayanpur - 494661, District Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyaya, Advocate For State :- Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 25.11.2025 1. By way of this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the impugned removal order dated 05.09.2023, issued by Respondent No. 2 — VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.11.26 10:36:05 +0530 2 the District Child Protection Unit, Narayanpur (“Annexure P-1”) — on the grounds that it is arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, and violative of the Petitioner’s fundamental and statutory rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India as the Respondents have removed the Petitioner from the position of Member, District Child Welfare Committee, Narayanpur, before completion of the mandatory tenure of three years, without any justifiable cause, reasoned decision, or adherence to due process. 2. By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:- “10.1 To set aside the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 being arbitrary and illegal & bad in the eyes of law. 10.2 To restrain the respondents from removing the Petitioner as the Member of the District Child Welfare Committee, Narayanpur without completion of period of 3 years of his service. 10.3 To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with costs of the petition.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was duly appointed on 02.11.2020 as a Member of the District Child Welfare Committee, Narayanpur, under Section 27(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for a fixed tenure of three years 3 ending on 02.11.2023, as per the Appointment Order and the statutory framework then in force. At the time of his appointment, the applicable rules and advertisement prescribed a minimum age of 35 years with no maximum age, and Section 27(6) of the Act as well as unamended Rule 15(3) contemplated a uniform three-year tenure. Subsequently, an amendment dated 01.09.2022 to the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 introduced a maximum age limit of 65 years. Nearly a year later, on 04.09.2023, the State Government directed removal of Committee Members who had crossed 65 years of age, even if their fixed tenure was still running. Acting on this circular, Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned removal order dated 05.09.2023 abruptly terminating the Petitioner’s tenure though only two months remained. Notably, the Petitioner had already completed 65 years of age in 2021, much prior to the amendment, rendering the retrospective application of the amended rule illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the terms of his appointment. The Petitioner submitted a representation challenging this action, but to no avail, thereby causing him financial loss, mental agony, and violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned removal order dated 05.09.2023 is patently arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, as the Petitioner was appointed for a fixed tenure of three years under the Appointment Order dated 02.11.2020, and the statutory framework prevailing on the date of his 4 appointment namely Section 27(6) of the Juvenile Justice Act and the unamended Rule 15(3) mandated a uniform tenure of three years without prescribing any upper age limit. It is argued that the subsequent amendment of 01.09.2022 introducing an upper age limit of 65 years cannot be applied retrospectively to prematurely curtail an already vested tenure, especially when the Petitioner had crossed the age of 65 much prior to the amendment, rendering the action of the authorities manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that only two months of the Petitioner’s tenure remained at the time of the impugned removal, and the belated action of the Respondents is harsh, unreasonable and contrary to principles of fairness, thereby warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned removal order dated 05.09.2023 is in accordance with law and fully justified. It is submitted that the tenure of the Petitioner is governed not only by the original appointment order but also by the statutory provisions and rules as subsequently amended. The amendment dated 01.09.2022, which introduced an upper age limit of 65 years, applies to all incumbents to ensure compliance with the statutory scheme and to maintain uniformity in service conditions. The State further submits that the Petitioner had already crossed the age of 65 at the relevant time, and therefore, continuation in service beyond the prescribed age limit would be 5 contrary to law. It is argued that the removal does not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, as it is a lawful action based on objective criteria and applies equally to all similarly placed officers. Moreover, the action of the Respondents was taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 27(6) of the Juvenile Justice Act read with the applicable rules, and cannot be construed as arbitrary, discriminatory, or harsh. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been rightly removed from the post of Member of the Child Welfare Committee upon attaining the age of 66 years, whereas the maximum age permitted under the law is 65 years. The removal was lawful and in accordance with statutory provisions, and the petition fails to disclose any ground warranting interference. 8. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha