Prior hearing not needed for premature retirement after 55: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the principle of natural justice, involving the right to a prior hearing, does not apply when an employee is prematurely retired under the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules after attaining the age of 55.

The ruling by Justice Vikas Bahl of the high court is significant as it clarifies that compulsory retirement under the circumstances is not considered a punishment and is not subject to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner’s argument challenging the retirement notice on grounds of a lack of prior hearing was deemed meritless based on the legal interpretation provided in a Supreme Court judgment on the issue.

The matter was placed before Justice Bahl’s Bench after the petitioner-police official sought the quashing of notice of retirement under Rule 9.18 (1) (c) of the Punjab Police Rules. His counsel argued that prior hearing was not given to the petitioner before the issuance of the notice dated January 12. As such, the issuance of the notice was in violation of the principle of natural justice and deserved to be set aside.

Justice Bahl asserted a note appended to Rule 9.18 (1) specifically provided that the appointing authority retained an absolute right to retire any government servant “on or after he has attained the age of 55 without assigning any reason”.

There was nothing in the rule which even remotely indicated that hearing was required to be given to the petitioner prior to the issuance of notice/order of retiring an employee on or after he attained the age of 55 years. Justice Bahl observed no law was cited by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument that personal hearing was required to be given to the petitioner prior to the issuance of notice / order.

Referring to legal precedents on the issue, Justice Bahl asserted: “The notice for retiring the petitioner prematurely after having attained the age of 55 years has been issued under Rule 9.18 (1)(c) and the petitioner is not sought to be compulsory retired by way of punishment. Thus, as per the law laid down in the Supreme Court judgment, the principle of natural justice would have no application in the present case and the sole argument raised on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the notice is meritless and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected”.