Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

The petitioner has sought quashing of the decision taken by the respondents to retire him at the age of 58 years with a further direction that he be allowed to continue in service till the age of 60 years.

2. The petitioner had joined the Rajasthan Judicial Services on 21.09.1967. He was promoted to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 09.05.1975. He was thereafter, promoted to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on the basis of selection made by the High Court on 17.03.1979. A Committee of the High Court, comprising 7 Judges after consideration of his record, decided to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years. This recommendation of the Committee of 7 Judges was considered and approved by the Full Court of the High Court. This decision is impugned in the instant petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the service record of the petitioner was satisfactory and hence, there was no basis to deny him continuation in office till the age of 60 years. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India & Ors. reported as (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 288 and Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported as (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 580.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire service record of the petitioner was taken into consideration by the Committee of 7 Judges of the High Court which recommended his retirement at the age of 58 years. This recommendation was approved by the Full Court of the High Court, and hence it could not be said that there was any arbitrariness or illegality in the decision taken to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. At the outset, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India & Ors.(supra) wherein while issuing several directions including streamlining selection and service conditions of Judicial Officers, it was also directed that age of superannuation of subordinate Judicial Officer shall stand extended upto 60 years. It was further directed that the High Court shall assess and evaluate the record of Judicial Officer for his continued utility to extend him the benefit of enhanced superannuation age from 58 to 60 years only if he is fit and eligible to continue in service. In case he is not found fit and eligible, he should be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 58 years. It was also directed that evaluation of the eligibility to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years is in addition to and independent of the assessment for compulsory retirement that may have to be undertaken at an earlier stage. It is apparent that in terms of this direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rule 56A was introduced in the Rajasthan Service Rules vide a notification dated 28.12.1998 effective from 31.03.1999. Rule 56A is reproduced herein : -

"56-A.(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 56, the date of compulsory retirement of a Government Servant other than a Government servant of Class IV, is the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances

Provided that the period for which a person has been retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement may be altered by the Government any time by an order recorded in writing: Provided further that the provisions of age of compulsory retirement as contained in this sub rule shall not be applicable in the case of Governme