Reserved On : 09/07/2025 Pronounced On : 25/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10772 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-

====================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

====================================================

K M BHUT Versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.

====================================================

Appearance:

MR BJ TRIVEDI(921) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI(3090) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ====================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing Notification dated 19.05.2009 compulsory retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years and 6 months (considering his Date of Birth i.e. 22.11.1950).

2. The petitioner serving as a District Judge from 04.11.2004 until 20.05.2009, when he came to be retired compulsory vide Notification dated 19.05.2009. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi appearing for the petitioner at the outset, has submitted that the petitioner could not have been retired compulsory after he was promoted w.e.f. 01.05.2003 as a District Judge. It is submitted that no complaints have been entertained against the petitioner and all the complaints, being 14 in number, were filed and hence, there was no material available with the respondents to compulsory retire the petitioner from service. He has further submitted that in fact the Confidential Reports (CRs) of the petitioner from March, 1994 till he was made to retire was “very good” and the CRs, on the contrary, reveals that he was an excellent Judicial Officer.

4. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr.Trivedi that the petitioner was never intimated about anything adverse with regard to his work or conduct and his entire career was spotless and unblemished. He has referred that during 10 years of total working days, which were 1573 days and out of that, for 853 days, the petitioner had conducted the matters of civil side and for 720 days, he had dealt with the criminal work. It is submitted that in both sides, criminal as well as civil, average of the petitioner comes to 666% per year. Further, it is submitted that while the petitioner was functioning at Mehsana from 01.03.2007 to 28.03.2008, he has disposed of the matters of Motor Accident Claims and when the evening Court was functioning from 06:15 to 08:15 P.M. during a period of one year, he has disposed of many old matters.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has submitted that the petitioner has only to be ordered to be compulsory retired from service in view of the communication dated 29.12.2008 written by the petitioner to the High Court requesting to transfer him looking to his age and he was not keeping well. It is submitted that in fact the request for transfer could have been rejected instead of compulsory retiring him from service. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been retired under the guise of public interest without following Rule 21(2) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (for short “the Judicial Rules”), which mentions that the Judicial Officer can be compulsory retired, after he has been considered at least three times, when he is about to attain the age of 50 years, 55 years and 58 years. It is submitted that at the age of 50 years, the petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Joint District Judge and hence, it can be presumed that there was nothing adverse against him.

6. Similarly, it