Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nelson Sailo

Order Date: 28.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Sushil Tirkey (former Deputy General Manager – General, FCI, Assam Region) vs. Food Corporation of India and its Chairman & Managing Director, Review Committee, Representation Committee, and General Manager (Region), Guwahati.
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petition (WP (C) No.5038 of 2023) challenging the compulsory retirement order dated 08.05.2023 issued under Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulations and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner’s representation dated 19.07.2023.
  • Service background: Joined FCI as Assistant Manager on 12.05.1997; promoted ad‑hoc to Assistant General Manager (Technical) on 16.09.2009; regularised in that post on 08.10.2010; promoted to Deputy General Manager (General) on 25.06.2021 and assumed office on 07.07.2021.
  • Allegations / Issues raised by petitioner: No adverse reports during tenure; APAR grades “Outstanding” for the period 01.01.2019‑31.12.2021; APAR for 01.01.2022‑31.03.2023 not reported due to medical leave; claim that retirement order was mechanically passed, non‑speaking, and violated Clause‑10(iv) of Circular No. EP‑01‑2021‑24 dated 09.07.2021 which requires satisfactory service in the preceding five years for retirement on grounds of ineffectiveness.
  • Respondent’s contentions: Regulation 22(2) permits compulsory retirement after age 55 without a speaking order; retirement based on subjective satisfaction and public interest; petitioner’s service record shows penalties – reduction of pay scale (order 11.03.2014), withholding of one increment (order 26.07.2016), stoppage of one increment (order 05.12.2019); “Fair” grading in 2013; integrity remarks recorded as “Nothing adverse/Nothing adverse came to notice” rather than “Beyond Doubt”. Promotion to Deputy General Manager was on seniority‑cum‑fitness, not merit.
  • Key statutory references: Regulation 22(2) of FCI Staff Regulations; Circular EP‑01‑2021‑24 (Clause‑10 criteria for Review Committee); relevant Supreme Court precedents – Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. (1992), M.S. Bindra (1998), K. Kandaswamy (1995), Prasant Kumar Satapathy v. FCI (2026:DHC:4051), State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel (2001).
  • Financial figures disclosed: Upon retirement, petitioner received CPF Rs. 79,26,036; gratuity Rs. 20,00,000; unutilised earned leave Rs. 7,39,458; HPL leave Rs. 3,64,832.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the impugned compulsory retirement order (08.05.2023) and the representation‑rejection order (19.07.2023) were not sustainable because they were passed without a discernible consideration of the petitioner’s service record and contrary to the criteria laid down in the 2021 Circular.
  • The orders are hereby set aside.
  • The writ petition is allowed; parties are directed to bear their own costs.
  • Considering the petitioner’s age at the time of filing, the Court directed the respondents to act in accordance with Clause‑14 of Circular No. EP‑01‑2021‑24 dated 09.07.2021, which deals with superannuation procedures.

Topics: Compulsory Retirement, Food Corporation of India, Public Service Law