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

2001 Supreme(Pat) 335

R.N.PRASAD, M.L.VISA
Sushree Sumitra Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

R.N.Prasad, J.

1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who was a member of Subordinate Judicial Service and posted as Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, prayed for quashing the order contained in letter no. 19542 dated 6/7.12.1999 whereby she was not allowed the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years rather to retire at the age of 58 years, Annexure-5, the order contained in letter no. 2458 dated 19.2.2000 whereby her representation dated 4.1.2000 to allow her benefit to retire at the age of 60 years has been rejected, Annexure-7, and also the adverse remarks recorded on 11.10.1999 by the Inspecting Judge communicated to her vide letter dated 6.12.1999, Annexure-3.

2. The petitioner has challenged the communication, Annexure-5 not allowing the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years on the ground; firstly, that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the retirement age of Judicial Officer stood increased to 60 years, before attaining the age of. 60 years the petitioner cannot be made to retire at the age of 58 years except by following procedure for compulsory retirement, the order, Annexure-5, in

















































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