Important point
Benefit of increase in retirement age to 60 years for judicial officer of subordinate Court will be available to those who in the opinion of respective High Courts had potential for continued useful service.

Headnote:Service Law—Retirement age of Judge of subordinate Court—Benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years—In All India Judges Association case Supreme Court directed for framing of appropriate rules—Benefit of increase of retirement age to 60 years was not to be available automatically to all judicial officers and was to be available to those who in the opinion of respective High Courts had potential for continued useful service—Once however rules were framed, directions given by Court were not to apply—High Court of Jharkhand had not framed any rules and thus directions formulated in 1993 in the second All India Judges Association case were to continue to prevail—Petitioner was denied extension beyond 58 years—Writ petition to question order of High Court—Petitioner had not urged any grounds of mala fides—High Court Evaluation Committee had recorded that vigilance proceedings had been initiated against petitioner on basis of several allegations made against petitioner—It could not be said that there was no material on basis of which Evaluation Committee formed the opinion that petitioner was not suitable for continuing in service beyond 58 years of age—Writ petition had no merits.
Held : It may be noted, at the outset, that the petitioner has not urged any grounds of malafides. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Evaluation Committee had taken into consideration the petitioner’s ACRs from 1976 to 1977, many of which showed that the petitioner was an average officer particularly in respect of the years immediately preceding the petitioner’s achieving the age of 58 years. Additionally, it was noted that a vigilance proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of several allegations made against him including a report made by the inspecting judge who had made an inspection and had reported that the petitioner did not have a good reputation. However, it was also noted that as far as the allegation of the inspecting judge was concerned the matter was placed in the Standing Committee meeting and was ultimately dropped. Although the petitioner has denied the allegations on merits, he has not denied in response to the counter affidavit that such a vigilance case was in fact pending. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no material on the basis on which the Evaluation Committee and subsequently the Full Court of the High Court formed the opinion that the petitioner was not suitable for continuing in service beyond the age of 58 years. The petitioner’s reliance upon an order of promotion superseding others is misplaced since it merely shows that the petitioner was better than those who were superseded but does not establish that the petitioner was fit to continue in service. (Para 13)

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 under Article 32 of the Constitution inter alia directed that appropriate rules should be framed or the extant rules must be amended in all the States and the Union Territories in respect of judicial services so as to fix the age of retirement at 60 years with effect from December 31, 1992. This and other directions were reconsidered by this Court in 1993 on an application for review filed by the Union of India and various States in All India Judges Association vs. Union of India 1993(4) SCC 288 (referred to as the second All India Judges Association Case). While disposing of the review application, it was stated that “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 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 judgment and other relevant matters. 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 as eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsory 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 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. Before giving the aforesaid directions the Court made it clear that “the directions issued mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive national policy is evolved. These directions, to the extent they go,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 871

Important pointBenefit of increase in retirement age to 60 years for judicial officer of subordinate Court will be available to those who in the opinion of respective High Courts had potential for continued useful service.

Cases Referred (4)

Important point
Benefit of increase in retirement age to 60 years for judicial officer of subordinate Court will be available to those who in the opinion of respective High Courts had potential for continued useful service.