Honble AHMAD, J.–Leave granted.

(2). Sarnam Singh (respondent No. 1), who shall hereinafter be referred to as respondent, was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 12.11.1997 passed by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court which itself, incidentally, is the appellant before us.

(3). This Court in All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (1), had issued certain directions for improvement of the service conditions of the members of the subordinate judiciary in the country. The Union of India and various States thereafter filed a Review Petition which was considered and disposed of by this Court on August 24, 1993 by Judgment since reported as All India Judges Association and others vs. Union of India and others (2). It may be pointed out that by the earlier Judgment in the main case of All India Judges Association (supra), one of the directions related to the enhancement of superannuation age of all the subordinate Judicial Officers upto 60 years. This question was also considered in the Review Petition and while rejecting the contention of the Union of India and other States that age of retirement should not be enhanced to 60 years, this Court, inter alia, observed as under :-

``30. There is, however, one aspect we should emphasise here. To that extent the direction contained in the main judgment under review shall stand modified. The benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years, shall not be available automatically to all judicial offices irrespective of their past continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a 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 Officers past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters.

31. 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 and eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily 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 benefit 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). Pursuant to the above directions, the High Courts, all over the country, before allowing Officers of the subordinate judiciary to continue in service upto the age of 60 years, scrutinised the work, conduct and performance of all Officers who were about to attain the age of 58 years, to determine whether they were fit to be allowed an extension in service or were fit to be compulsorily retired. This scrutiny was done in accordance with the procedure laid down by the respective Service Rules relating to compulsory retirement as applicable to the Judicial Officers.

(5). This exercise was done in the case of respondent also who was compulsorily retired from service principally on account of the adverse remark given by the then Inspect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document