2003 (7) TMI 692 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the actions on the part of the High Court or the State in compulsorily retiring the appellants herein were illegal?

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the retirement orders dated 23.03.1999.
2. Applicability of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and subsequent amendments.
3. Compliance with the All India Judges' Association judgments.
4. Validity of pre-retirement assessments.
5. Applicability of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.
6. Discretionary relief under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Retirement Orders Dated 23.03.1999:
The appellants, officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, were retired from service w.e.f. 31.03.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. They challenged the retirement orders before the High Court of Rajasthan, which dismissed their writ petitions. The High Court upheld the retirement orders, concluding that the appellants were not fit to be given the benefit of extension beyond 58 years.

2. Applicability of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and Subsequent Amendments:
The retirement orders were challenged based on the contention that Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, as amended on 27.06.1998, provided for retirement at 60 years without any pre-retirement assessment. However, the respondents argued that the amended Rule 56, notified on 28.12.1998 (effective from 31.03.1999), reduced the retirement age to 58 years with an exception for judicial officers considered fit for continued service up to 60 years.

3. Compliance with the All India Judges' Association Judgments:
The appellants contended that the All India Judges' Association judgments mandated that judicial officers should be assessed for their suitability to continue in service before attaining the age of 58 years. The High Court's assessment and the subsequent retirement orders were argued to be in compliance with these judgments. The Supreme Court noted that the statutory rules framed after the All India Judges' Association cases governed the retirement age and pre-retirement assessments.

4. Validity of Pre-retirement Assessments:
The Committee of Judges, headed by the Chief Justice, evaluated the appellants' service records and found them unfit for extension beyond 58 years. The Committee's report, which was approved by the Full Court, detailed the reasons for not extending the appellants' service. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that the pre-retirement assessments were valid and in accordance with the statutory rules.

5. Applicability of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996:
The appellants argued that Rule 53, which provides for compulsory retirement in public interest after completing 25 years of service or attaining 50 years of age, was not invoked. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not rely on Rule 53 for the retirement orders and that the pre-requisites for invoking Rule 53, such as giving three months' notice, were not complied with.

6. Discretionary Relief under Article 136 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and noted that even if the appellants' contentions had some merit, substantial justice was being done. The Court emphasized that the nature of judicial service requires the removal of officers of doubtful integrity or lost utility. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision but directed the payment of all retiral benefits to the appellants within three months.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the retirement orders dated 23.03.1999. The Court found that the pre-retirement assessments were conducted in accordance with the statutory rules and the All India Judges' Association judgments. The Court directed the High Court and the State Government to pay all retiral benefits to the appellants expeditiously.

← Previous Next →