#Fundamental Rules

The Supreme Court ruled that a compulsory retirement order under Rule 56(j) of the Central Industrial Security Force’s Fundamental Rules is a non-punitive service measure, not subject to natural-justice safeguards, and can be challenged only on grounds of arbitrariness or mala-fides. This narrows the scope of judicial review for senior officers facing retirement at the age of 50.

When disciplinary proceedings against a government employee conclude with only a warning - not a punishment - the suspension period must be treated as duty time, entitling the employee to full pay, allowances, and incremental benefits. This ruling reinforces that warnings under the M.P. Civil Services Rules are administrative censure, not penal sanctions, and unjustified suspension cannot deprive employees of earned entitlements.

MP High Court quashes premature retirement order, affirming that Medical Officers with 20+ years of service are entitled to retire at 65 under amended Fundamental Rules. The ruling underscores the state's obligation to retain experienced medical professionals, especially in rural areas, and mandates consequential benefits for affected officers.

Madras High Court's Madurai Bench rules that excess pension payments under FR 22-B cannot be recovered, emphasizing prospective application of pay refixation orders. The judgment protects pensioners from financial hardship due to administrative errors and reinforces the principle of non-recovery for past overpayments.

Punjab & Haryana High Court dismisses petitions seeking date of birth alteration after 32 years, ruling that corrections under Fundamental Rules must be sought within five years of appointment. The court held that unchallenged service records govern retirement age, barring belated claims even if supported by school certificates.

CAT holds that AICTE Regulations on retirement age do not bind defence establishments; Central Government employees governed by Fundamental Rules, not statutory education regulations.