# Pradeep Kumar v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 304
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 3505 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-v-union-of-india-ors-53917
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. In light of the same, it is clear that
the amount that has been held by the State
Authorities is without the authority of law
and is required to be refunded, subject to
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Value
Added Tax Act, 2008, specially Section 43,
which provides for the procedure for
disbursement of amount wrongly realized
by the dealers as tax. In the present case,
both the buyer and the seller of the goods
are before the Court. The liability of the tax
in the present case has been passed on to
the buyer of the goods, as per the finding in
the impugned order.

7. In light of the same, we direct the
authority concerned to refund the money to
the buyer, i.e., petitioner No.2, upon an
indemnity
bond
being
furnished
by
petitioner No.2 in accordance with law to
the satisfaction of the authorities, within a
period of eight weeks from the date.

8. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has also sought
interest on the amount lying with the
authorities to be paid. However, we are of
the view that, at the present moment, only
the principal amount should be returned to
the petitioners and the interest be kept
pending with the authorities and only be
returned after the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

9. With the above directions, this writ
petition is disposed of.

10.
The
impugned
order
dated
19.07.2025, rejecting the refund, is quashed
and set aside.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 304
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 3505 of 2024

Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shariq Shamim, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Prem Narayan Rai, Santosh Kumar
Mishra

Issue for Consideration
1. Permissibility of considering the entire service
record, and effect of non-considering the
immediate previous service, while passing the
order of compulsory retirement.
2. Scope of judicial review in the matter of
compulsory retirement.

Headnotes
A. Service law - Compulsory Retirement -
Immediate previous service record
-
Earlier, the Reviewing Officer promoted
the petitioner relying upon it - Instead of
considering this fact, the petitioner was
compulsorily retired considering the entire
service record - Validity challenged -
Various
disciplinary
proceeding
with
multiple
punishment
orders
were
conducted
against
the
petitioner
-
Relevance - Effect of Circular dated
09.07.2021 felt into consideration:
Held : In order to ascertain whether petitioner
was fit to retain in service or was a case for
compulsory retirement, his entire service record
could be looked into, therefore, there is no
illegality if entire record of petitioner was
looked, therefore, a fact that petitioner was
suffered with more than about 28 punishments
within a period of 7 years would be a relevant
fact to decide where petitioner was fit to
continue or not in service - All clauses of
Circular dated 09.07.2021 have to be read
jointly - Later part of said Clause puts a caveat
9 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
305
also that it would be considered only if
employee was promoted on basis of merit and
not on basis of seniority cum fitness, whereas
learned Senior Advocate for petitioner has not
put up his case that promotion of petitioner was
based on merit only and not on basis of
seniority cum fitness, therefore, benefit as
sought by the petitioner of said Clause cannot
be granted. [Paras 12 and 16]

B. Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Judicial review - Compulsory
Retirement - Scope of interference:
Held : The scope for judicial review of an order
of
compulsory
retirement
based
on
the
subjective satisfaction of the employer is
extremely narrow and restricted - H.C. (GD) Om
Prakash's case relied upon. [Para 18] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
C.I.S.F. v. H.C. (GD) Om Prakash, AIR Online
2022 SC 122 : (2022) 5 SCC 100; Jagat Narayan
v. State of U.P. and others, AIR Online 2023 All
657; Birendra Singh Chauhan and others v.
Food
Corporation
of
India
and
others,
2023:PHHC:164004 - referred to.

List of Acts
Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation, 1971
- Clause No. 22(2); Circular dated 09.07.2021 -
Clause 10 - Sub-clause IV and V.

List of Keywords
Compulsory
retirement;
Service
record;
Reviewing Committee; Promotion; Integrity and
Character; Disciplinary proceeding; Warning;
Recovery
penalty;
Increment;
Punishment;
Merit; Seniority; Fitness; Judicial review.

Case Arising From
Order of the Executive Director, North Zone,
Food Corporation of India dated 18.08.2023
compulsorily retiring the petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Sri Ashok Khare, Sr.
Advocate; Mr. Shariq Shamim
Advs. for the Respondeents : Mr. Prem Narayan
Rai, Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Present case is arising out of an
order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the
Executive Director, North Zone, Food
Corporation of India whereby petitioner
was compulsorily retired in the interest of
Corporation and public interest in general
as well as an order dated 24.11.2023
whereby the representation of petitioner
was rejected after examination by the
Representation Committee.

2. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Shariq Shamim
has not disputed a well settled position of
law that order of compulsorily retirement is
itself not an order of punishment nor it
casts any stigma, however, he has argued
that
Reviewing
Committee
has
not
considered the detailed representation filed
by the petitioner that his immediate
previous
service
record
was
found
satisfactory that he was found fit for
promotion and was promoted also before
impugned order was passed as well as
broad criteria as mentioned in Circular
dated
09.07.2021
issued
by
Food
Corporation of India were also not
followed and without assigning any reason,
his representation was rejected by the
Reviewing Committee.

3. Learned Senior Advocate has
referred Clause No. 22(2) of Food
Corporation of India Staff Regulation, 1971
as amended as well as Clause-10 of
Circular
dated
09.07.2021
and
for
reference, same are quoted below :-

"(2) (A) (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Regulation, the
Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the
opinion that it is in the public interest so to
do, have the absolute right to retire any
Corporation employee by giving him notice
of not less than three months in writing or
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
three months' pay and allowances in lieu of
such notice:

(a) If he is, in Category I & II
service or post in a substantive, quasipermanent or temporary capacity and had
entered
Corporation
service
befon
attaining the age of 35 years, after he has
attained the age of 50 years;"

************

"10.
Broad
Criteria
to
be
followed by the Review Committee:- The
broad criteria to be followed by the Review
Committee
while
making
the
recommendations are as follows:-

(i) Corporation employees whose
Integrity is doubtful shall be retired.

(ii) Corporation employees found
to be Ineffective shall also be retired. The
basic consideration In Identifying such
Corporation employees should be their
fitness / competence to continue in the post
held.

(iii) No Corporation employee
should ordinarily be retired on ground of
Ineffectiveness, if, in any event, he would
be retiring on superannuation within a
period of one year from the date of
consideration of his case. However, In a
case where there is a sudden and steep fall
in
the
competence,
efficiency
or
effectiveness of a Corporation employee, It
would be open to review such a case also
for
premature
retirement:
The
sald
Instruction of not retiring the Corporation
employee within one year on the ground of
Ineffectiveness except In case of sudden
and steep. Ineffectiveness, but not on the
ground of doubtful Integrity.

(iv) No Corporation employee
should ordinarily be retired on ground of
ineffectiveness, if, his service during the
preceding 5 years or where he has been
promoted to a higher post during that 5
year period, his service in the highest post,
has been found satisfactory. There is no
such stipulation, however, where the
Corporation employee is to be retired on
grounds of doubtful Integrity. In case of
those Corporation employees who have
been promoted during the last 5 years, the
previous entries in the APARs may be taken
Into account if he was promoted on the
basis of seniority cum fitness, and not on
the basis of merit.

(v) The entire service record of a
Corporation
employee
should
be
considered at the time of review. The
expression 'service record' refers to all
relevant records and therefore, the review
should not be confined to the consideration
of the APAR dossier. The personal file of
the Corporation employee may contain
valuable material. Similarly, his work and
performance could also be assessed by
looking into files dealt with by him or in
any papers or reports prepared and
submitted by him. It would be useful if the
concerned
Internal
Committee
puts
together all the data available about
Corporation employee and prepares a
comprehensive brief for consideration by
the
Review
Committee.
Even
uncommunicated remarks in the APARs may
be taken into consideration."

4. Learned Senior Advocate has
referred contents of representation filed by
the petitioner before Reviewing Committee
that his ACR for year 2015, 2016, 2018 and
2019 was 'very good' and his integrity and
character was not doubted to make him
9 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
307
unfit to continue in organization service
and for public interest in general.

5. Learned Senior Advocate has also
submitted that undisputedly petitioner has
suffered
28
disciplinary
proceedings
between 2013 and 2020 and out of which
two proceedings were dropped and in one
case, a warning was given and in other
case, increment was stopped for 2 years
and for remaining 24 cases only, symbolic
recovery penalty was imposed.

6. Learned Senior Advocate has
further referred a judgment of High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital as well as High
Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein
different High Courts have passed order in
favour of employees that in a case where an
employee was promoted in preceding 5
years, said fact would be an important
factor for consideration of a representation
filed against the compulsory retirement by
the Reviewing Committee.

7. Learned Senior Advocate has also
referred
that
petitioner
was
treated
differently whereas there are example of
other employees whose applications were
accepted by Reviewing Committee and
orders of compulsorily retirement were
interfered.

8. Per contra, Sri Prem Narayan Rai,
learned counsel for Union of India and Sri
Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent-FCI have referred a judgment
passed by Supreme Court in C.I.S.F. vs.
H.C. (GD) Om Prakash, AIR Online
2022 SC 122 : (2022) 5 SCC 100 and a
judgment passed by coordinate Bench of
this Court in Jagat Narayan vs. State of
U.P. and others, AIR Online 2023 All
657 that entire record of employeepetitioner was rightly considered and it
could not be limited only of last few years
as well as procedure prescribed was
followed by Reviewing Committee.

9.
Learned
counsel
has
further
submitted that petitioner's service record is
not unblemished and admittedly he has
suffered various disciplinary proceedings
wherein punishment awarded on multiple
times, therefore, there was no illegality in
impugned order.

10.
I
have
considered
above
submissions and perused the record.

11.
In
order
to
consider
rival
submissions, few paragraphs of H.C. (GD)
Om Prakash (supra) being relevant are
quoted below :-

"12. In the judgment reported as
Rajasthan SRTC v. Babu Lal Jangir
[Rajasthan SRTC v. Babu Lal Jangir,
(2013) 10 SCC 551 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S)
219] , the High Court had taken into
consideration adverse entries for the period
12 years prior to premature retirement. This
Court held that Brij Mohan Singh Chopra
v. State of Punjab [Brij Mohan Singh
Chopra v. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC
188] was overruled only on the second
proposition that an order of compulsory
retirement is required to be passed after
complying with the principles of natural
justice. This Court also considered the
"washed-off theory" i.e. the remarks would
be wiped off on account of such record
being of remote past. Reliance was placed
upon a three-Judge Bench judgment of this
Court reported as Pyare Mohan Lal v. State
of Jharkhand [Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of
Jharkhand, (2010) 10 SCC 693 : (2011) 1
SCC (L&S) 550] and it was observed that :
(Babu Lal Jangir case [Rajasthan SRTC v.
Babu Lal Jangir, (2013) 10 SCC 551 :
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 219] , SCC pp. 56364, paras 22-23)

"22. It clearly follows from the
above that the clarification given by a twoJudge Bench judgment in Badrinath
[Badrinath v. State of T.N., (2000) 8 SCC
395 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 13] is not correct
and the observations of this Court in
Gurdas Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurdas
Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 92 : 1998 SCC (L&S)
1004] to the effect that the adverse entries
prior to the promotion or crossing of
efficiency bar or picking up higher rank are
not wiped off and can be taken into account
while considering the overall performance
of the employee when it comes to the
consideration of case of that employee for
premature retirement.

23. The principle of law which is
clarified and stands crystallised after the
judgment in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of
Jharkhand [Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of
Jharkhand, (2010) 10 SCC 693 : (2011) 1
SCC (L&S) 550] is that after the promotion
of an employee the adverse entries prior
thereto would have no relevance and can be
treated as wiped off when the case of the
government employee is to be considered
for further promotion. However, this
"washed-off
theory"
will
have
no
application when the case of an employee
is being assessed to determine whether he
is fit to be retained in service or requires to
be given compulsory retirement. The
rationale given is that since such an
assessment is based on "entire service
record", there is no question of not taking
into consideration the earlier old adverse
entries or record of the old period. We may
hasten to add that while such a record can
be taken into consideration, at the same
time, the service record of the immediate
past period will have to be given due
credence and weightage. For example, as
against some very old adverse entries
where the immediate past record shows
exemplary performance, ignoring such a
record of recent past and acting only on the
basis of old adverse entries, to retire a
person will be a clear example of arbitrary
exercise of power. However, if old record
pertains to integrity of a person then that
may be sufficient to justify the order of
premature retirement of the government
servant."

13. There are numerous other
judgments
upholding
the
orders
of
premature retirement of judicial officers
inter alia on the ground that the judicial
service is not akin to other services. A
person discharging judicial duties acts on
behalf of the State in discharge of its
sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice
is not only an onerous duty but has been
considered as discharge of a pious duty,
therefore, it is a very serious matter. This
Court in Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U.P.
[Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U.P., (2020)
1 SCC 801 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 245]
held as under : (SCC p. 805, para 6)

"6. ... The scope for judicial
review
of
an
order
of
compulsory
retirement
based
on
the
subjective
satisfaction of the employer is extremely
narrow and restricted. Only if it is found to
be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds,
vitiated by mala fides, overlooks relevant
materials, could there be limited scope for
interference. The court, in judicial review,
cannot sit in judgment over the same as an
appellate authority. Principles of natural
justice have no application in a case of
compulsory retirement."

14. Thus, we find that the High
Court has not only misread the judgment of
9 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
309
this
Court
in
Baikuntha
Nath
Das
[Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical
Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC
(L&S) 521] but wrongly applied the
principles laid down therein. The adverse
remarks can be taken into consideration as
mentioned in the number of judgments
mentioned above. There is also a factual
error in the order [Om Prakash v. Central
Industrial Security Force, 2011 SCC
OnLine Del 4388] of the High Court that
there are no adverse remarks and that the
ACRs for the year 1990 till the year 2009
were either good or very good. In fact, the
summary of ACRs as reproduced by the
High
Court
itself
shows
average,
satisfactory and in fact below average
reports as well.

15. The entire service record is to
be taken into consideration which would
include the ACRs of the period prior to the
promotion.
The
order
of
premature
retirement is required to be passed on the
basis of entire service records, though the
recent reports would carry their own
weight."

12. Aforesaid judgment is squarely
applicable in present case that in order to
ascertain whether petitioner was fit to retain
in service or was a case for compulsory
retirement, his entire service record could be
looked into, therefore, there is no illegality if
entire record of petitioner was looked,
therefore, a fact that petitioner was suffered
with more than about 28 punishments within
a period of 7 years would be a relevant fact to
decide where petitioner was fit to continue or
not in service.

13. Court also takes note of relevant
Regulation i.e. Clause-10 of Circular dated
09.07.2021
and
its
Clause-V
has
specifically provided that :-

"The entire service record of a
Corporation
employee
should
be
considered at the time of review. The
expression 'service record' refers to all
relevant records and therefore, the review
should not be confined to the consideration
of the APAR dossier."

14. Therefore, an argument of learned
Senior Advocate that his past record of 5
years was found good and he was found fit
for promotion would have more weightage
and earlier record which also includes
multiple orders of punishment may be
ignored, if accepted would be contrary to
above referred Clauses of Circular dated
09.07.2021.

15. Facts of other cases wherein
Reviewing
Committee
has
passed
favourable orders cannot be a ground to
reconsider case of petitioner since their
facts and their service records are not
before this Court and each case is decided
on basis of its own facts.

16. Court takes note of sub-clause-V
of
Clause
-
10 of
Circular
dated
09.07.2021, however, Court is of the view
that all clauses have to be read jointly.
Clause-IV provides that "No Corporation
employee should ordinarily be retired on
ground of ineffectiveness, if, his service
during the preceding 5 years or where he
has been promoted to a higher post during
that 5 year period, his service in the highest
post,
has
been
found
satisfactory",
however, later part of said Clause puts a
caveat also that it would be considered only
if employee was promoted on basis of merit
and not on basis of seniority cum fitness,
whereas learned Senior Advocate for
petitioner has not put up his case that
promotion of petitioner was based on merit
only and not on basis of seniority cum
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fitness, therefore, benefit as sought by the
petitioner of said Clause cannot be granted.
In view of above, judgment of Birendra
Singh Chauhan and others vs. Food
Corporation of India and others and
other
connected
cases,
2023:PHHC:164004 would also not much
helpful to the case of petitioner.

17. In view of above, on basis of facts
of present case and on basis of joint reading
of sub-Clause X, the argument raised by
learned Senior Advocate for petitioner has
no legal basis, therefore, no case is made
out for interference.

18. Court is also of the view that facts
of present case are squarely covered by
H.C. (GD) Om Prakash (supra) which is
against the petitioner since the scope for
judicial review of an order of compulsory
retirement
based
on
the
subjective
satisfaction of the employer is extremely
narrow and restricted and since petitioner
has failed to show that it was based on
arbitrary or extraneous ground or affected
by malafide, this Court in judicial review
cannot sit as an Appellate Authority.

19. In view of overall circumstances,
writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 310
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 6954 of 2019

Sandeep Raizada & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
A.K. Srivastava, Samir Sharma (Senior
Adv.), Sudhir Dixit, Utkarsh Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Mishra, Vinod Kumar
Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Entitlement of Assistant Regional Manager
appointed between 1986 to 1990 to get pension
in the light of the GO dated 21.07.1972 issued
u/s 34(1) of the Act of 1950, particularly when
the UP State Road Transport Corporation
Officers Service (General) Regulations, 1998
came into operation.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Pension - Entitlement -
Petitioners were appointed as Assistant
Regional Manager between 1986 to 1990
in State Road Transport Corporation -
Pension was claimed to be granted under
the GO dated 21.07.1972 - Application of
UP State Road Transport Corporation
Officers Service (General) Regulations,
1998 felt into consideration :
Held : The declaration made in very beginning
of Regulations, 1998 provides that it was in
supersession of all Government Orders on
subject, therefore, it was in supersession of the
Government Order dated 21.07.1972 also,
therefore, benefit of it, if any, to service
conditions of petitioners would come to an end
when Regulations, 1998 came into existence.
After enforcement of Regulations, 1998 the
services of petitioners would govern by its
regulations only and, therefore, in case said
regulations provides provision of pension to
services of petitioners, it would be granted,
otherwise no pension can be granted - There is
no
specific
provision
subsequent
to
commencement of Regulations, 1998 that
petitioners were entitled for pension - In
absence of any specific provision of service
regulation to grant pension to petitioners, the
relief sought cannot be granted. [Paras 55, 59
and 63 (B) and 63 (C) and 64]

(B) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Claim of pension was
made - It's permissibility, particularly