Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010141472025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3747/2025 DINESH KUMAR S/O- LATE RAM BALAK PRASAD, R/O- VILL.- MUSTAFAPUR, P.O. AND P.S. KHAGUAL, DIST. PATNA, BIHAR, PIN- 801105. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES LAIKHORE SHILLONG PIN- 793010. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HQ DGAR RECORD BRANCH ADM-VI LAIKORE SHILLONG-793010. 4:THE COMMANDANT 24 ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99 APO PIN- 932024 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, POOJA ROY,L DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S P CHOUDHURY (C.G.C) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 29.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. L. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who was serving as a Havaldar (GD) in Assam Rifles Unit 24, is aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2021, whereby the petitioner had been made to prematurely retire from service with effect from 01.03.2021, on completion of 30 years of qualifying service, by invoking Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the “1972 Rules”). 3. Mr. M. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had joined Assam Rifles as Constable (GD) on 01.02.1991 and would have attained the age of superannuation only on 29.12.2032. The petitioner has been prematurely retired by invoking Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules, although the impugned order dated 20.02.2021 does not disclose any reason for such premature retirement. He submits that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was being retired on the ground of doubtful integrity or on account of his being ineffective or inefficient in service. He submits that in view of the judgment of this Court in Prodip Kumar Haloi, No. G/56702 & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2012 (2) GLT 520, the respondents Page No.# 3/5 could not have resorted to Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules in respect of an Assam Rifles personnel without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. 4. Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned CGC, submits that the matter may be considered in the light of the applicable rules and the judgment rendered by this Court in Prodip Kumar Haloi, (supra). 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 6. The petitioner has been made to retire from service with effect from 01.03.2021, upon completion of 30 years of qualifying service, by invoking Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules, vide order dated 20.02.2021. The impugned order does not disclose any reason or basis for prematurely retiring the petitioner from service. There is nothing in the said order to indicate that the petitioner was prematurely retired on the ground that his integrity was doubtful or that he had become ineffective or inefficient in service. 7. In the case of Prodip Kumar Haloi (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court had dealt with a similar issue concerning premature retirement of Assam Rifles personnel by invoking Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules. This Court held that Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 would have to be followed prior to applying Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules/FR 56(j), where the premature retirement of an Assam Rifles personnel is sought to be effected on account of his low medical categorisation. It further held that the respondents, in the guise Page No.# 4/5 of applying Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules or FR 56(j), cannot retire a person on account of his low medical categorisation without first following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. 8. The aforesaid principle was subsequently applied by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 18.07.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 264/2018, wherein also an Assam Rifles personnel had been prematurely retired by invoking Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules upon completion of 30 years of qualifying service. In the said case, upon examining the materials on record, it had found that the petitioner therein had been prematurely retired on account of his low medical categorisation, without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. Relying upon the decision in Prodip Kumar Haloi (supra), the Court held that such action was not sustainable and accordingly set aside the order of premature retirement, with liberty to the respondents to examine the medical fitness of the petitioner and take further steps, if necessary, by applying Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. 9. In the present case also, the petitioner, who was serving in Assam Rifles, has been prematurely retired by invoking Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules upon completion of 30 years of qualifying service. However, the impugned order dated 20.02.2021 does not disclose the basis on which such power has been exercised. More so, there is nothing on record to show that the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 was followed before the petitioner was prematurely retired. Page No.# 5/5 10. The respondents, being the authorities administering the Assam Rifles, were required to act in accordance with the special statutory provisions governing the service of the petitioner. The general power of premature retirement under Rule 48(1)(b) of the 1972 Rules could not have been invoked so as to circumvent the procedure specifically prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, as held by this Court in Prodip Kumar Haloi (supra). 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down in Prodip Kumar Haloi (supra), the impugned order dated 20.02.2021, whereby the petitioner was prematurely retired from service with effect from 01.03.2021, is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith. 12. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules and may take further steps, if necessary, by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. 13. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant