PRASANT KUMAR SATAPATHY vs FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 05th May, 2026 + W.P.(C) 1274/2024 PRASANT KUMAR SATAPATHY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Mr. Navneet Dogra and Mr. Amritesh Mohanty, Advocates. versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj and Ms. Aparna Sinha, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA,J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 30134/2026 (for early hearing) 1. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The writ petition is called on Board today itself with the consent of the counsels. 2. Disposed of. W.P.(C) 1274/2024 3. The Petitioner assails the order dated 19th May, 2023 whereby he was prematurely retired from the service of the Food Corporation of India under Regulation 22(2A) of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971, and the consequential order dated 20th July, 2023 whereby his Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 1 of 16 Signing Date:08.05.2026 10:25:36 representation came to be rejected. 4. The challenge, though directed against an order of compulsory retirement in public interest, raises a pertinent question as to the manner in which such power is to be exercised when the employer has chosen to bind itself to structured criteria under its own Circular dated 09 th July, 2021 and when the officer concerned carries a recent record of promotions and consistently high annual appraisals. 5. The law governing compulsory retirement is well settled. The power is, no doubt, wide; but it is not unbridled. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, an order of compulsory retirement is ordinarily neither punitive nor stigmatic; yet the breadth of the power does not place it beyond judicial revie