DR.

AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI

PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

INDEX

SR. PARTICULARS
NO.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

5. AFFIDAVIT

6. ABSTRACT OF ISSUES

7. SUMMERY OF PLEADING

8. BODY OF ARGUMENTS

9. PRAYER

10. VERIFICATION

11. VAKALATNAMA
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

SR. NO. Short Form Full Form

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. SCC Supreme Court Cases

3. Hon'ble Honourable

4. CPC Code of Civil Procedure

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 14 (Equality before the law)

2. Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment)

3. Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty)

STATUTES

1. Food Corporation of India Act, 1964

2. Fundamental Rules (FR)

3. Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

1. Union of India vs. Col. J.N. Sinha, (1971) 1 SCC 791

2. State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 01

3. D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 405

4. State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrabhan Sudhakar, (1987) 1 SCC 578

5. Union of India vs. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 15 SCC 1

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS

1. Delhi High Court: State vs. S.L. Gupta, 1979 SCC Online Del 27

2. Bombay High Court: State vs. K.G. Khade, 1985 SCC Online Bom 27

LABOR LAWS

1. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

2. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

SERVICE RULES

1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

2. Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1965

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

CITATIONS:

AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3271,

2017 (8) SCC 670, 2017 (5) ABR 219,

(2017) 4 MAH LJ 898,

(2017) 5 MAD LJ 462,

(2017) 4 KER LT 31,

(2017) 3 SCT 735,

AIR 2017 SC (CIVIL) 2354,

(2017) 7 SCALE 395,

(2017) 3 LAB LN 14,

(2018) 1 PAT LJR 271,

(2018) 1 JLJR 273

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

BENCH:

D Y Chandrachud,

N V Ramana,

Jagdish Singh Khehar

NO. OF BENCH:

THREE JUDGES BENCH

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

To the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated [Date] passed by the
High Court of Judicature at [Name of High Court] in Writ Petition No. [Petition
Number] of [Year], whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by
the respondent.

2. The High Court's judgment is contrary to law and facts.

3. This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under Article 136
of the Constitution of India.

4. The appeal involves substantial questions of law of general importance,

including:

a. Interpretation of Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

b. Application of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

c. Scope of judicial review in administrative matters.

5. The appeal also involves a challenge to the High Court's jurisdiction and
powers.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

GROUNDS OF JURISDICTION

A. This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

B. The appeal raises substantial questions of law.

C. The appeal involves a challenge to the High Court's jurisdiction.

PARTICULARS OF JURISDICTION

1. Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2. Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

3. Order XXI, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

DECLARATION

I, [Name], Advocate for the Appellant, declare that the facts stated in this
statement are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Verified at [Place] on this [Date] day of [Month], [Year].
---
Signature of Advocate
[Name]
Advocate/Counsel
for the Appellant.
DATE: [Date]
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Appellant, Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India
(FCI), appeals against the judgment and order dated [Date] passed by the High
Court of Judicature at [Name of High Court] in Writ Petition No. [Petition
Number] of [Year].

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2.1 The Respondent, Jagdish Balaram Bahira, was appointed as [Designation] in

FCI on [Date].

2.2 The Respondent attained the age of superannuation on [Date].

2.3 The Appellant issued a retirement notice to the Respondent on [Date].

2.4 The Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the
retirement notice.

2.5 The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Appellant to
continue the Respondent in service.

KEY FACTS

3.1 The Respondent's continuation in service beyond the age of superannuation

is unjustified.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3.2 The Appellant's decision to retire the Respondent is in accordance with

Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

3.3 The Respondent's performance does not warrant continuation in service.

3.4 The Respondent's retention creates inequality among employees.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

4.1 [Date]: Respondent's appointment as [Designation] in FCI.

4.2 [Date]: Respondent attains age of superannuation.

4.3 [Date]: Appellant issues retirement notice.

4.4 [Date]: Respondent files writ petition.

4.5 [Date]: High Court allows writ petition.

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ABSTRACT OF ISSUES

To the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:

I. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

RESPONDENT'S CONTINUATION IN SERVICE BEYOND THE AGE OF
SUPERANNUATION IS JUSTIFIED?

II. WHETHER THE APPELLANT'S DECISION TO RETIRE THE

RESPONDENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL RULES
AND SERVICE REGULATIONS?

III. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S RETENTION IN SERVICE CREATES

INEQUALITY AMONG EMPLOYEES?

IV. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S PERFORMANCE WARRANTS

CONTINUATION IN SERVICE?

V. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IS CONTRARY TO

ESTABLISHED LAW AND PRECEDENTS?

VI. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS JUSTIFIED IN SEEKING

INTERVENTION OF THIS HON'BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF
THE CONSTITUTION?

B. ISSUES OF LAW

I. INTERPRETATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND SERVICE

REGULATIONS
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION

III. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

C. ISSUES OF FACT

I. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT ATTAINED THE AGE OF

SUPERANNUATION ON [DATE]?

II. WHETHER THE APPELLANT ISSUED A RETIREMENT NOTICE TO

THE RESPONDENT ON [DATE]?

III. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S PERFORMANCE WAS

SATISFACTORY?

Respectfully submitted.

[Name]
Advocate/Counsel
for the Appellant.
DATE: [Date]

ANNEXURES
Annexure A: Copy of Fundamental Rules
Annexure B: Copy of service regulations
Annexure C: Copy of relevant case laws
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ARGUMENTS BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FCI

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The appellant, Chairman and Managing Director, FCI, submits that the
respondent, Jagdish Balaram Bahira, was duly retired from service on [Date] in
accordance with the Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

1.2 The respondent's continuation in service beyond the age of superannuation

is unjustified and contrary to law.

1.3 The Appellant seeks to overturn the High Court's judgment, which
erroneously held that the Respondent's continuation in service was justified.

II. APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS

2.1 The respondent's retention in service is violative of Article 14 (equality

before the law) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity) of the Constitution.

2.2 The respondent's continuation in service is ultra vires the Fundamental

Rules and service regulations.

2.3 The respondent was not entitled to continue in service beyond the age of
superannuation.

III. RESPONDENT'S CONTINUATION IN SERVICE UNJUSTIFIED

3.1 The respondent's performance was not exceptional to justify continuation in

service.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3.2 The respondent's retention does not serve the interests of FCI.

3.3 The respondent's continuation in service creates inequality among

employees.

The Appellant submits that the Respondent's continuation in service beyond the
age of superannuation is unjustified and contrary to law. The Respondent's
performance, though satisfactory, does not warrant continuation in service.
Moreover, the Respondent's retention does not serve the interests of FCI, and
creates inequality among employees.

IV. HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT ERRONEOUS

4.1 The High Court erred in holding that the respondent's continuation in
service was justified.

4.2 The High Court failed to consider the relevant provisions of the
Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

4.3 The High Court's judgment is contrary to established law.

The Appellant contends that the High Court erred in holding that the
Respondent's continuation in service was justified. The High Court failed to
consider the relevant provisions of the Fundamental Rules and service
regulations. Furthermore, the High Court's judgment is contrary to established
law.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

V. APPELLANT'S DECISION JUSTIFIED

5.1 The appellant's decision to retire the respondent was taken in accordance
with the Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

5.2 The respondent was given adequate opportunity to show cause against
retirement.

5.3 The appellant's decision is reasonable and justifiable.

The Appellant submits that the decision to retire the Respondent was taken in
accordance with the Fundamental Rules and service regulations. The
Respondent was given adequate opportunity to show cause against retirement.
The Appellant's decision is reasonable and justifiable.

VI. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS

6.1 The appellant relies on the following case laws:

- State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, (1988) 3 SCC 50

- Union of India vs. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 15 SCC 1

- D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 405

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

6.2 The appellant submits that the respondent's continuation in service is

contrary to law.

VII: VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND SERVICE

REGULATIONS

The Appellant argues that the Respondent's continuation in service is ultra vires
the Fundamental Rules and service regulations. Rule 56 of the Fundamental
Rules explicitly states that a government servant shall retire on attaining the age
of superannuation. The Respondent's retention is a clear violation of this rule.

VIII. RESPONDENT'S CONTINUATION IN SERVICE AGAINST

PUBLIC POLICY

8.1 The Respondent's continuation in service beyond the age of superannuation

is against public policy.

8.2 It creates an unfair advantage over other employees who have retired at the
age of superannuation.

8.3 It undermines the integrity of the retirement system.

IX. NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE APPELLANT

9.1 The Respondent's continuation in service does not create estoppel against
the Appellant.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

9.2 The Appellant's decision to retire the Respondent is in accordance with the
Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

9.3 The Respondent cannot claim estoppel against the Appellant.

X. RESPONDENT'S ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

10.1 The Respondent has alternative remedies available.

10.2 The Respondent can approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.

10.3 The Respondent's writ petition before the High Court was misconceived.

XI. HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT NOT SUSTAINABLE

11.1 The High Court's judgment is not sustainable.

11.2 The High Court erred in holding that the Respondent's continuation in
service was justified.

11.3 The High Court's judgment is contrary to established law.

XII: EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

The Appellant argues that the Respondent's continuation in service violates

Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Constitution. The Respondent's
retention creates an unfair advantage over other employees who have retired at
the age of superannuation.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ARGUMENTS ON MERITS

1. The Respondent's continuation in service beyond retirement age is

unjustified.

2. Fundamental Rules and service regulations mandate retirement at 60.

3. The Respondent's performance does not warrant extension.

4. No extraordinary circumstances justify his retention.

ARGUMENTS ON PUBLIC POLICY

1. Respondent's continuation in service against public policy.

2. Undermines integrity of retirement system.

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF PLEADING

APPELLANT'S CASE

1. The Respondent's continuation in service beyond the age of superannuation is

unjustified.

2. The Appellant's decision to retire the Respondent is in accordance with

Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

3. The Respondent's retention creates inequality among employees.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Interpretation of Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

2. Application of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. Scope of judicial review in administrative matters.

RELIEF SOUGHT

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the High Court's judgment.

3. Direct the Respondent to relinquish his post.

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. Error in interpretation of Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

2. Error in application of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. Error in scope of judicial review.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

1. Fundamental Rules.

2. Service regulations.

3. Relevant case laws.

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

BODY OF ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT SIDE

ARGUMENT I: RESPONDENT'S CONTINUATION IN SERVICE

UNJUSTIFIED

1.1 The Respondent's continuation in service beyond the age of superannuation

is unjustified.

1.2 The Fundamental Rules and service regulations explicitly state that a
government servant shall retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

1.3 The Respondent's retention creates inequality among employees.

ARGUMENT II: APPELLANT'S DECISION JUSTIFIED

2.1 The Appellant's decision to retire the Respondent is in accordance with

Fundamental Rules and service regulations.

2.2 The Respondent was given adequate opportunity to show cause against
retirement.

2.3 The Appellant's decision is reasonable and justifiable.

ARGUMENT III: HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT ERRONEOUS

3.1 The High Court erred in holding that the Respondent's continuation in
service was justified.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3.2 The High Court failed to consider relevant provisions of Fundamental Rules
and service regulations.

3.3 The High Court's judgment is contrary to established law.

ARGUMENT IV: LEGAL PRECEDENTS

4.1 State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, (1988) 3 SCC 50

4.2 Union of India vs. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 15 SCC 1

4.3 D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 405

ARGUMENT V: CONCLUSION

5.1 The Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed.

5.2 The Respondent's continuation in service be declared ultra vires.

5.3 The Respondent be directed to relinquish his post.

Respectfully submitted.

[Name]
Advocate/Counsel
for the Appellant.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

PRAYER

To this Hon'ble Court, the Appellant prays:

1. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the appeal.

2. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment and order
dated [Date] passed by the High Court of Judicature at [Name of High Court] in
Writ Petition No. [Petition Number] of [Year].

3. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the Respondent's

continuation in service beyond the age of superannuation as ultra vires.

4. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to relinquish
his post forthwith.

5. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other relief(s) as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

6. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award costs of this appeal to the
Appellant.

Respectfully submitted.
[Name]
Advocate/Counsel
for the Appellant.
DATE: [Date]
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. [Number] of [Year]

Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (FCI)

...Appellant

Vs.

Jagdish Bahira

...Respondent

VERIFICATION

I, [Name], Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (FCI),

aged [Age], residing at [Address], do hereby state that:

1. I am the Chairman and Managing Director of Food Corporation of India

(FCI), the Appellant in the above-mentioned appeal.

2. I have read and understood the contents of the appeal.

3. The facts stated in the appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

4. No material fact has been concealed or suppressed.

5. The documents filed along with the appeal are true and genuine.

I verify that the contents of the appeal are true and correct.

Verified at [Place] on this [Date] day of [Month], [Year].

---

Signature of Appellant

[Name]

Chairman and Managing Director

Food Corporation of India (FCI)

[Address]

DATE: [Date]
 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. [Number] of [Year]

Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (FCI)

...Appellant

Vs.

Jagdish Bahira

...Respondent

VAKALATNAMA

I, Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (FCI), the

Appellant in the above-mentioned appeal, do hereby appoint and constitute:

[Name]
[Address]
[Bar Enrollment Number]

as my Advocate/Vakil to appear, plead, and prosecute the above appeal.

I authorize my Advocate/Vakil to:

 DR. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA, MUMBAI
PETITION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. Appear before this Hon'ble Court.

2. File and withdraw documents.

3. Receive documents and notices.

I hereby declare that I have full faith and confidence in my Advocate/Vakil.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this Vakalatnama.

Signed at [Place] on this [Date] day of [Month], [Year].

---
Signature of Appellant

[Name]
Chairman and Managing Director
Food Corporation of India (FCI)

Verified at [Place] on this [Date] day of [Month], [Year].

---
Signature of Witness/Oath Commissioner

[Name]
[Designation]
[Stamp/Seal]
DATE: [Date]