P.B.MAJMUDAR

1. Non-extension of service beyond the age of 58 years is challenged by the Judicial Officer in the present Special Civil Application. Whether on the basis of proper assessment of service record of the petitioner his services were required to be extended by extending the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years is the question, which is required to be considered in this petition. On the basis of assessment of the service record of the petitioner the High Court on its administrative side took decision not to give benefit of enhanced age of superannuation up to 60 years from 58 years. The petitioner was appointed as a Labour Judge with effect from 06th June, 1983. The petitioner thereafter promoted as Chief Judge, Labour Court with effect from 25th November, 1994. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as the Member of the Industrial Court with effect from 29th December, 2000. By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the High Court on its administrative side by which the petitioner has not been given benefit of enhancement of superannuation age up to 60 years from 58 years. The petitioner was communicated the decision by communication dated 17thOctober, 2001, which is at Annexure-B in the compilation. The petitioner was informed by the President of the Industrial Court that as per the direction of the High Court, it is found that the petitioner was not fit for the benefit of enhancement of superannuation age up to 60 years and in that view of the matter, he would stand retire on 31st October, 2001 after office hours.

2. The aforesaid decision is challenged mainly on the following grounds:

2.1. The petitioner was appointed by the State Government and therefore, such decision of retiring the petitioner could not have been communicated by the High Court but it was required to be communicated by the State Government only. Whether to give benefit of extension of service to the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years is the decision, which is required to be taken by the Government and not by the High Court, as the Government is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner.

2.2. That the Gujarat Industrial Courts Judges Association along with others had filed a writ petition in past being Special Civil Application No.12665 of 2000 challenging the decision of the State Government appointing Shri N.A. Acharya as the President of the Industrial Court on the recommendation of the High Court. The Full Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the appointment of Shri Acharya on the post of President of the Industrial Court. The petitioner was the President of the Gujarat Industrial Courts Judges Association and in the said capacity he had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1796 of 2001. In the said affidavit, the petitioner had challenged the recommendation of the Gujarat High Court on its administrative side recommending Shri N.A. Acharya's name for the appointment on the post of President of the Industrial Court. In view of the same, by way of vindictive action, decision was taken by the High Court not to extend the superannuation age of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years. She, therefore, argued that the decision in question is malafide and arbitrary.

2.3. That the then President of the Industrial Court Shri Acharya has not pointed out relevant materials before the High Court and pointed out only selective materials and in view of the same, High Court has taken the impugned decision, and therefore, it can be said that the said decision is vitiated as relevant material was not placed before it for consideration by Shri Acharya, the then President of the Industrial Court.

2.4. The order in question by which the benefit of extension of superannuation up to 60 years is not granted to the petitioner is based on irrelevant consideration and is not objective decision. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not communicated