IMPORTANT POINT
Direction in All India Judges Association case (1993) 4 SCC 288 regarding procedure of evaluation and secrutiny of service of Judicial Officer at the age of 58 year to give extention of service up to 60 years is only a transitional measure and once a State Govt. framed rules fixing retirement age at 60 years Judicial Officer would be entitled to continue the High Court cannot resort to the procedure of evaluation and scrutiny after rules framed by State Government.

Headnote:(i) Service Law-Judicial service-Superannuation age of Judicial Officer-Compulsory retirement-U.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement on superannuation) Rules, 1992-U.P. Rules fixing retirement age at 60 years in terms of directions of Supreme Court in All India Judges Association s case (1992) 1 SCC 119-High Court ordering compulsory retirement Judicial Officer on attaining 58 years of age, after scrutiny of service record to find out suitability of retaining service-Not tenable-Direction as to procedure of scrutiny of service in All India Judges Association case (1993) 4 SCC 288 only transitional measure-After U.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement on superannuation) Rules High Court cannot resort to procedure of scrutiny of service records-Judicial officers entitled to continue in service upt to age of 60 years.
       Held : The procedure indicated by this Court in All India Judge s Association s case (1993) 4 SCC 288 for evaluating the work, performance and conduct of Judicial Officers, before allowing them to continue in service upto the age of 60 years, was evolved as a temporary measure and was not to be adopted as a permanent feature. The choice was thus left to the Appointing Authoirty. If the Appointing Authority itself had made necessary Service Rules extending the age of retirement, the above procedure was to be given up as the Officers would continue in service in accordance with the Service Rules made by the Appointing Authority in the respective States. If it was not done, then the Judicial Officers were to continue in service till the age of 60 years in accordance with the directions of this Court in the earlier case, provided the Officers, on a scrutiny of their service records, in accordance with the directions issued in the Review Petition, were found suitable for the benefit of extended service. (Para 13)
       The State Government, acting upon the directions of this Court in the earlier case (1992) 1 SCC 119, made new Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, and that too within the time fixed by this Court, by which the age of retirement of all Judicial Officers was raised from 58 to 60 years. In view of these Rules, which also had the overriding effect over F.R. 56, the Judicial Officers in the State of U.P. became entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The directions of this Court or scrutiny of their service records before allowing them to continue in service beyond 58 years, being of a transitory character, yielded place to the new Rules made by the State Govt. under Article 309 of the Constitution and, therefore, it was no longer incumbent upon the High Court ot resort to the procedure of scrutiny of the service records of all Judicial Officers before allowing them the beneit of extension in the age of retirement. The contention of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court, that the directions of this Court about the scrutiny of the service record should be read as supplemental to the new Service Rules cannot be accepted as this Court itself had indicated clearly that the directions were intended to serve as a "transitional measure". (Para 14)
       In the instant case, the High Court overlooked the vital fact that the new Rules already made by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution provided specifically that the Judical Officers would retire on attaining the age of 60 years. That being so, it was no longer necessary for the High Court to have scrutinised the service record at that stage. The respondent, in view of the new Rules, was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the State Govt. on the recommendation of the High Court was wholly erroneous. (Para 16)
       (ii) Service Law-Character roll service record-Judicial Service-Adverse in character roll-Opportunity of hearing to concerned officer -Not required to be given. (Para 28)
       (iii) Service Law-Compulsory retirement-Judicial Officer-Evaluation of service record by High Court-Adverse remark in character roll by Inspecting Judge-Compulsory retirement recomended by High Court-Perusal of service record by Judicial side of High Court-Judgment that adverse entry unjustified-On facts judgment warrants no interference-Role of Inspecting Judges and manner of assessing work of Judicial Officers as served in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Ishwar Chand Jain & Anr., 1999(4) Supreme 299 reiterated. (Paras 18 to 30)

JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Leave granted.

2. Sarnam Singh (respondent No. 1), who shall hereinafter be referred to as respondent, was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 12.11.1997 passed by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court which itself, incidentally, is the appellant before us.

3. This Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India1, had issued certain directions for improvement of the service conditions of the members of the subordinate judiciary in the country. The Union of India and various States thereafter filed a Review Petition which was considered and disposed of by this Court on August 24, 1993 by Judgment since reported as All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.2. It may be pointed out that by the earlier judgment in the main case of All India Judge s Association (supra), one of the directions related to the enhancement of superannuation age of all the subordinate Judicial Officers upto 60 years. This question was also considered in the Review Petition and while rejecting the contention of the Union of India and other States that age of retirement should not be enhanced to 60 years, this Court, inter alia, observed as under:-

"30. There is, however, one aspect we should emphasise here. To that extent the direction contained in the main judgment under review shall stand modified. The benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years, shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a potential for continued useful service. It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent the infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. The potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate Committees of Judges of the respective High Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the judicial officer s past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters.

31. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service Rules applicable to the judicial officers.Those who will not be found fit and eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement. The exercise should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58 years even in cases where earlier the age of superannuation was less than 58 years. It is necessary to make it clear that this assessment is for the purpose of finding out the suitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of the concerned officers for the entitlement of the benefit of the increased age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. It is in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement and the compulsory retirement at the earlier stage/s under the respective Service Rules."

4. Pursuant to the above directions,the High Courts, all over the country, before allowing officers of the subordinate judiciary to continue in service upto the age of 60 years, scrutinised the work, conduct and performance of all Officers who were about to attain the age of 58 years, to determine whether they were fit to be allowed an extension in service or were fit to be compulsorily retired. This scrutiny was done in accordance with the procedure laid down by the respective Service Rules relating to compulsory retirement as applicable to the Judicial Officers.

5. This exercise was done in the case of respondent also who was compulsorily retired from s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 602

Cases Referred (11)