1 CGHC010194542017 2026:CGHC:32534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6238 of 2017  Sushil Ram S/o Late Chamru Ram, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bhawarkhoh, Post Baijnathpur, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Surguja Circle, Ambikaspur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Surajpur, Forest Division, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh , District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 29.7.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Surguja Circle, Ambikapur, and petitioner may kindly be granted all consequential benefits. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire records pertaining to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner including the minutes of meeting of the screening committee, who has recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Forest Guard on 11.9.1984 and he was subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. Meanwhile, State Government issued a circular on 25.4.2017 which provided for assessment of cases of government servants who have either attained the age of 50 years or completed 20 years of service for the purposes of compulsory retirement. Matter of the petitioner was referred to the Screening Committee constituted as per circular dated 25.4.2017 and pursuant to the recommendation given by the said Committee, Chief Conservator Of Forest, Surguja Circle vide order dated 11.9.2017 took decision with regard to compulsory retirement against the petitioner. 3 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 on 11.9.2017 passed an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner in contravention to the provisions of Sub-Rule 2(A) of Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule 42(1)(B) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Pension Rules, 1976’] violating the spirit of the circular dated 25.4.2017. She further submits that petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing of the order impugned and the authority(s) concerned failed to examine the entire service before recording subjective satisfaction which is a mandatory requirement before issuing an order of compulsory retirement. He also submits that there were no criminal case or departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner therefore the order of compulsory retirement cannot be said to have been taken in public interest. She prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that it is a well settled principle of law that while considering compulsory retirement in public interest, the employer is entitled to examine the service record of such employee, including both favorable and adverse entries. He further submits that the screening committee considered the service profile of preceding five years and arrived at a bona fide satisfaction that his continuation in service was not in public interest and the decision was taken objectively after examining the entire material available on record and such 4 decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide in any manner. He also submits that principles of natural justice would not apply in the matter of compulsory retirement as such an order cannot be construed as stigmatic or punitive in nature and while taking decision of compulsory retirement in public interest according to the policy, no departmental inquiry or prior opportunity of hearing is required. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) Admittedly, petitioner was appointed to the post of Forest Guard on 11.9.1984 whereas the order impugned was passed on 11.9.2017, thus on the said date petitioner had completed 33 years of service and his age was around 60 years. The Screening Committee considered the service record of preceding five years (2012 to 2016) wherein his evaluation was (ग), (ख), (ग), (ग) and (ग). 7) Sub-Rule 2(a) of Fundamental Rule 56 confers right to the State Government to retire any government employee in public interest after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service, or he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier. Fundamental Rule 56 is reproduced herein-below:- 56. Age of Superannuation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) every Age of superannuation, Government Servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: 5 Provided that a Government Servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the proceeding month on attaining the age of sixty years. (2)(a) A Government servant may, in the public interest, be retired at any time after he has completed 20 years qualifying service, or he attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier, without assigning any reason by giving him a notice in writing.". (b) The period of such notice shall be three months: Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months. 8) Rule 42 of Pension Rules, 1976 reads as under:- 42. Retirement on completion of [20 years) qualifying service.-[(1) (a) A Government servant may retire at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in Form 28, to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period of three months or for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months: Provided that where the Government servant giving such notice is under suspension, he shall not be allowed to retire from service without the prior permission in writing of the appointing authority. (b) The appointing authority may in the public interest require a Government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed [20 years qualifying service or he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier], with the approval of the State Government by giving him three months notice in Form 29: Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum such retirement the equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his 6 retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months. 9) Pursuant to policy dated 25.4.2017, a three member committee was constituted which convened its meeting on 17.8.2017. The minutes of said meeting has been placed along with the reply marked as Annexure R/2. From bare perusal of aforesaid document, it transpires that the committee was convened to consider the cases of government servants who had attained 50 years of age or 20 years of service. The committee while scrutinizing the cases considered – (i) honesty and doubtful integrity ; (ii) lack of physical fitness ; (iii) evaluation of working capacity and (iv) gradation of service records should not be below than good (ख). 10) However, the screening committee only considered the service record of preceding five years contrary to the circular dated 25.4.2017 wherein grading of petitioner was (ग), (ख), (ग), (ग) and (ग) respectively. Furthermore, no finding has been recorded by the screening committee with regard to honesty, integrity and lack of physical fitness. The Committee after considering the afore-stated facts recommended the petitioner for compulsory retirement and subsequently, respondent No. 3 passed a specific order in this regard on 11.9.2017. 7 11) Though, it is well settled principle of law that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not cast any stigma upon the employee and hence principles of natural justice have no place in context of compulsory retirement but formation of opinion of compulsory retirement must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned and such satisfaction must be based on a valid material and the courts may ascertain whether a valid material exists or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nand Kumar Verma Versus State of Jharkhand and Others1, while dealing with the similar issue held that selective consideration is not permissible while taking decision with regard to compulsory retirement. Relevant paragraphs 34 and 35 read as under :- 34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACRs. There appears to be some discrepancy. We say so for the reason that the appellant has produced the copies of the ACRs which were obtained by him from the High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a comparison of these two would positively indicate that the 1. (2012) 3 SCC 580 8 High Court has not faithfully extracted the contents of the ACRs. 35. The High Court has taken the decision on the basis of selective service record which includes the summarised ACRs, as quoted in the impugned judgment, for the selected years. The ACRs for the initial years 1975-1976 and 1976-1977 remark him as capable of improvement against the quality of work, the ACRs for the years 1982-1983, 1983-1984 point that his work is unsatisfactory, the ACRs for the years 1984- 1985, 1987-1988 remark his work performance as unsatisfactory with bad reputation and quarrelsome attitude, and the ACRs for the later years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 refer to some private complaints and remark that his powers were divested by the High Court and the ACRs for the recent years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 point no defect in judicial work but disposal of cases is poor. Whereas, the appellant furnished certain service records which include the ACR recorded by the Inspecting Judge in the year 1985 which evaluate the appellant as B Satisfactory against the entry "Net result", further the ACR prepared by the District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur for the year 1997-1998 assessed him as an officer of average merit, maintaining good relationship with bar, staff and colleagues but poor disposal, and the ACR prepared by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur for the year 1998-1999 assessed him as a good officer but poor disposal. However, his poor disposal during this period is justified up to certain extent in the background of his involvement in the continuous and unnecessary disciplinary proceedings which was based on the charges of granting of bail indiscriminately, even after the fact that he had been exonerated of these charges long back in the year 1995 by the High Court at Patna. 12) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the authority concerned formed its opinion for compulsory retirement only on the basis of selective service record of preceding five 9 years. The screening committee did not consider the entire service record of the petitioner and failed to record any finding with regard to honesty, integrity and physical fitness before forming its opinion for compulsory retirement. Therefore, decision taken by Chief Conservator Of Forest, Surguja Circle to compulsorily retire the petitioner cannot be said to have been taken in public interest. Accordingly, the order dated 11.9.2017 is hereby quashed. 13) In result, this writ petition is allowed. Since, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, he shall be entitled to receive all the benefits attached to the post including arrears of salary. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.29 16:50:03 +0530