SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 494

S.P.BHARUCHA, R.C.LAHOTI, K.S.HEGDE
Rajat Baran Roy – Appellant
Versus
State Of W. B. – Respondent


Judgment

Santosh Hegde, J.-The above writ petitions are admitted for final hearing Notice having been served on he respondents, they have put in their appearance and filed their response. Since the questions in­volved in these writ petitions are common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In W.P. No. 578/98, the petitioner was holding the post in the rank of a District Judge, who was compulsorily retired by an order of the Governor of West Bengal dated 23.10.1998 w.e.f. the date on which he attained the age of 58 yeras, i.e. 31.10.1998.

3. In W.P. No. 601/98, the petitioner was also holding a post equiva­lent to that of a District Judge and was similarly retired by an order of the Governor of the State of West Bengal dated 26.10.1998 on his attaining the age of 58 years which also happened to be 31.10.1998.

4. In W.P. No. 638/98, the petitioner was posted as a District Judge and was also compulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f. 30.11.1998 by an order of the Governor of West Bengal dated 2.11.1998. Admittedly, the retirements of the petitioners are not on disciplinary ground but on the ground that the High Court of Calcutta had recommended the ret


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top