Order

The question is whether the petitioner could have been asked to retire at the age of 58 years and his service not extended to the age of 60 years. The petitioner was an Additional District Judge. In 2003 he was served with an order dated 14th May, 2003 stating that the Court having assessed and evaluated the petitioner’s services had taken a decision not to allow the petitioner the benefit of enhancement of the retirement age from 58 to 60 years. Consequently, the petitioner would have to retire on completion of the age of 58 years on superannuation on 31st December, 2003.

2. The order has been impugned under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the decision relied upon in the impugned order, namely, All India Judges’ Association Vs. Union of India reported in 1993(4) SCC 288 did not apply to the petitioner’s case. It is also submitted that the grounds for not extending the petitioner’s services as disclosed in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents in answer to the writ petition, were unsustainable in fact and in law.

3. In All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India 1992(1) SCC 127 this Court had, on an application by the Judges Association u