Punjab and Haryana High Court: Premature retirement at age 55 does not need prior hearing

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has explicitly said that when an employee is prematurely retired under the Punjab Police Rules after turning 55, the right to a previous hearing—a fundamental component of natural justice—does not apply.

The high court’s decision by Justice Vikas Bahl is noteworthy since it makes it clear that forced retirement in these situations is not punishable and does not follow natural justice standards. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter determined that the petitioner’s challenge to the retirement notice, which was based on the claim that there had not been a previous hearing, lacked validity.

The petitioner, a police officer, requested that the notice of retirement be quashed in accordance with Rule 9.18 (1) (c) of the Punjab Police Rules, and this request brought the case before Justice Bahl’s Bench. His attorney contended that the petitioner was not granted a previous hearing prior to the notification dated January 12 being issued. Because of this, the notice’s issuance was unlawful and ought to be overturned since it violated the natural justice norm.

According to Justice Bahl, there was a special note attached to Rule 9.18 (1) that said the appointing authority has the complete ability to retire any government employee “on or after he has attained the age of 55 without assigning any reason.”

Nothing in the regulation even faintly suggested that the petitioner had to be granted a hearing before a notice or order of retirement was issued to him, either on or after he turned 55. Judge Bahl noted that the petitioner’s attorney had not provided any legal references to back up his claim that the petitioner needed to have a personal hearing before a notice or order could be issued.

Justice Bahl made the following claim, citing prior court rulings on the matter: “The petitioner is not being punished by being forced to retire; rather, Rule 9.18 (1)(c) has been used to issue the notice for the petitioner’s early retirement after reaching the age of 55. Therefore, in accordance with the legislation established in the Supreme Court ruling, the concept of natural justice would not apply in this particular instance, and the petitioner’s lone defense of the notice challenge is without merit and is appropriately dismissed.