Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gorakh Nath vs The State Of Haryana & Another on 29 July, 2013
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 29.07.2013
CWP No.5173 of 1996
Gorakh Nath, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana & another ...Respondents
CWP No.164 of 1996
Gorakh Nath, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana & another ...Respondents
CWP No.3358 of 1999
Gorakh Nath, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) ...Petitioner
Versus
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh ...Respondents
& another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate,
for respondent No.2-High Court.
Kumar Vimal
2013.08.08 14:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.5173 of 1996, 2
CWP No.164 of 1996 &
CWP No.3358 of 1999
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of aforementioned three writ petitions i.e. CWP No.5173 of 1996, wherein challenge is to an order dated 18.01.1996, whereby the petitioner was compulsory retired in terms of Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I read with Rule 5.32(A) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana; CWP No.164 of 1996, wherein challenge is to the adverse remarks i.e. 'C - Integrity Doubtful' recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as 'the ACR') for the year 1994-95 (ending 31.03.1995) and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.11.1995; and CWP No.3358 of 1999, wherein challenge is to the adverse remarks i.e. 'C (Below Average)' recorded in the ACR for the year 1995-96 (ending on 31.03.1996) and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.09.1998. Since all the writ petitions raised common question of law and facts, therefore, the same are taken up for hearing together.
The petitioner herein joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on 10.11.1965. The petitioner was allocated to the State of Haryana upon creation of separate State in November 1966. The petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 10.11.1989 and was to superannuate upon attaining the age of 60 years in the month of November, 1999.
The petitioner has averred that in the ACR for the year 1994- 95, it was recorded that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. The said adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.11.1995, but without waiting for the representation, which could be Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 3 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 submitted within the time granted, an order of compulsory retirement has been passed on 18.01.1996 consequent to the recommendations of the Full Court in its meeting held on 16.11.1995. In CWP No.164 of 1996, the grievance of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 1994-95 were not supported by reasons. Such remarks could be recorded only on some reasonable basis. It is contended that the petitioner was not confronted with any complaint nor any adverse material was supplied to the petitioner during the year in question. Therefore, he has no opportunity to show cause for recording of the adverse remarks and consequent order of compulsory retirement. It is also contended that the right of representation against the adverse remarks stands frustrated, as the order of compulsory retirement was passed soon after the remarks were recorded.
In CWP No.3358 of 1999, it is argued that the adverse remarks were recorded and communicated to the petitioner on 16.09.1998 i.e. after the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed on 18.01.1996.
In the written statements filed, it has been, inter alia, mentioned that a person can be retired compulsorily on the basis of ACRs, when integrity is doubtful. It is pointed out that the representations of the petitioner dated 28.12.1995 and 10.01.1996 against the adverse remarks for the year 1994-95 were considered by the Full Court on 13.02.1996 and the same were rejected. It is also pointed out that a complaint was received, when the petitioner was working as District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa, reflecting upon the integrity of the petitioner adversely. The same was Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 4 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 investigated into by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge and a finding was returned that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. Such report of the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge was placed before the Full Court. Before such report, the question of retention of the petitioner in the service beyond the age of 55 years also came up for consideration and the Full Court in its meeting held on 13.02.1995 decided to defer the matter till the submission of the inspection report by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. The Hon'ble Inspecting Judge submitted his inspection report on 20.09.1995 recommending him to grade as 'C-Integrity Doubtful'. Such report was affirmed by the Full Court in its meeting held on 16.11.1995 and recommendations were made to the State Government to compulsory retire the petitioner.
A resume of the entries in the ACRs given in the written statement shows that most of the reports are 'B-Plus (Good)', but reports for the years 1966-67 to 1971-72 & 1981-82 are 'B-Average/Satisfactory'; for the years 1977-78 & 1978-79 are 'A-Very Good', whereas reports for the years 1994-95 & 1995-96 are 'C-Integrity Doubtful' and 'C (Below Average)' respectively.
The question; whether any material is required for recording of adverse remarks, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Verma (dead) through LRs & others Vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) & others (2011) 10 SCC 1, wherein an argument was raised that without any material, the entry 'C (Integrity doubtful)' cannot be recorded. The Court also considered the argument that before recording adverse entry, an opportunity of hearing should be Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 5 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 granted to the Officer. The said arguments were dealt with in the following manner:
"175. Another point which was pressed into service for consideration of the Court was that the procedure of recording ACR wherein the appellants were given adverse remarks was in violation of the rules and principles of natural justice and as there was no material which would justify adverse entries in the ACRs of the appellants, the same could not have been taken into consideration while passing orders of compulsory retirement.
xxx xxx xxx
189. The argument that material was not supplied on the basis of which "C-Integrity Doubtful" was awarded to the appellants and, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside has no substance. Normally and contextually the word "material" means substance, matter, stuff, something, materiality, medium, data, facts, information, figures, notes, etc. When this Court is examining as to whether there was any "material" before the High Court on the basis of which adverse remarks were recorded in the confidential reports of the appellants, this "material" relates to substance, matter, data, information, etc. While considering the case of a judicial officer it is not necessary to limit the "material" only to written complaints or "tangible" evidence pointing finger at the integrity of the judicial officer. Such an evidence may not be forthcoming in such cases.
190. As observed by this Court in R.L. Butail v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 876 it is not necessary that an opportunity of being heard before recording adverse entry should be afforded to the officer concerned. In the said case, the contention that an inquiry would be necessary before an adverse entry is made was rejected as suffering from a misapprehension that such an entry amounts to the penalty of censure. It is explained by this Court in the said decision that: (SCC p. 876) "(ii) ... Making of an adverse entry is not equivalent to imposition of a penalty which would necessitate an enquiry or the giving of a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the government servant concerned."
xxx xxx xxx
193. Further, this Court in M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India (1998) 7 SCC 310 has used the phrase "preponderance of probability" to be applied before recording adverse entry regarding integrity of a judicial officer.
There is no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted with a Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 6 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 duty of writing ACR does not have right to tarnish the reputation of a judicial officer without any basis and without any "material" on record, but at the same time other equally important interest is also to be safeguarded i.e. ensuring that the corruption does not creep in judicial services and all possible attempts must be made to remove such a virus so that it should not spread and become infectious. When even verbal repeated complaints are received against a judicial officer or on enquiries, discreet or otherwise, the general impression created in the minds of those making inquiries or the Full Court is that judicial officer concerned does not carry good reputation, such discreet inquiry and/or repeated verbal complaints would constitute material on the basis of which ACR indicating that the integrity of the officer is doubtful can be recorded. While undertaking judicial review, the Court in an appropriate case may still quash the decision of the Full Court on administrative side if it is found that there is no basis or material on which the ACR of the judicial officer was recorded, but while undertaking this exercise of judicial review and trying to find out whether there is any material on record or not, it is the duty of the Court to keep in mind the nature of function being discharged by the judicial officer, the delicate nature of the exercise to be performed by the High Court on administrative side while recording the ACR and the mechanism/system adopted in recording such ACR."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that in the case of a Judicial Officer it is not necessary to limit the "material" only to written complaints or "tangible" evidence pointing finger at the integrity of the judicial officer. Such evidence may not be forthcoming in many cases. The said judgment has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.13720 of 2013 titled 'Chaman Lal Mohal Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh & another' decided on 12.07.2013. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Verma's case (supra) and followed by this Court in Chaman Lal Mohal's case (supra), it is not necessary that there has to be tangible material before recording of adverse remarks.
Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 7 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 In Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & others AIR 1999 SC 1018, on which learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon, adverse remarks for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94 were recorded at one time simultaneously and the officer was categorized as 'C' Grade Officer. It was found that such remarks were not recorded in normal course and when the Standing Committee of the High Court has already made up its mind to compulsorily retire the appellant from service. The representation made against these remarks was not dealt with within the normal course with reasonable promptitude, but was disposed of by the High Court after a long period of one year. The said judgment has been considered in the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Verma's case (supra).
We find that the said judgment is not helpful to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As a matter of fact, one of the primary reason to set aside the order of compulsory retirement was recording of reports for three years 'in one go' and then made such report as the basis of compulsory retirement.
In the present case, though the action was taken on the basis of the report of integrity doubtful without waiting for the representation and its consideration, but there is no allegation of lack of bona-fides by the Inspecting Judge. The adverse report recorded by the Inspecting Judge was placed before the Full Court. Since there is no lack of bona-fides attributed at any stage, therefore, no case is made out for interference in the collective wisdom of all the Judges as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 8 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 in Rajendra Singh Verma's case (supra), wherein it has been held to the following effect:
"191. Further, in case where the Full Court of the High Court recommends compulsory retirement of an officer, the High Court on the judicial side has to exercise great caution and circumspection in setting aside that order because it is a complement of all the Judges of the High Court who go into the question and it is possible that in all cases evidence would not be forthcoming about integrity doubtful of a judicial officer. As observed by this Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Ishwar Chand Jain case (supra), at times, the Full Court has to act on the collective wisdom of all the Judges and if the general reputation of an employee is not good, though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be given compulsory retirement in public interest and judicial review of such order is permissible only on limited grounds. The reputation of being corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of an officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke. Sometimes there may not be concrete or material evidence to make it part of the record. It would, therefore, be impracticable for the reporting officer or the competent controlling officer writing the confidential report to give specific instances of shortfalls, supported by evidence.
192. Normally, the adverse entry reflecting on the integrity would be based on formulations of impressions which would be the result of multiple factors simultaneously playing in the mind. Though the perceptions may differ, in the very nature of things there is a difficulty nearing an impossibility in subjecting the entries in the confidential rolls to judicial review. Sometimes, if the general reputation of an employee is not good though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be compulsorily retired in public interest. The duty conferred on the appropriate authority to consider the question of continuance of a judicial officer beyond a particular age is an absolute one. If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. When such a constitutional function is exercised on the administrative side of the High Court, any judicial review thereon should be made only with great care and circumspection and it must be confined strictly to the parameters set by this Court in several reported decisions. When the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 9 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 of a judicial officer is in public interest, the writ court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the order."
In view of the above, we find that the action of compulsory retiring the petitioner on the basis of adverse remarks recorded for the year 1994-95 cannot be said to be unjustified and untenable.
Though the report for the year 1995-96 came to be recorded subsequent to compulsory retirement of the petitioner, but that will not any way affect the order of compulsory retirement passed at an earlier point of time. The petitioner has already attained the age of 55 years. At that stage the usefulness of an Officer to the Institution is required to be examined. An order of compulsory retirement is not a stigma. Therefore, an order of compulsory retirement passed after considering the entire service record cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Babu Ram Walia Vs. State of Haryana, ILR (2006) 2 P&H 589 has considered the provisions relating to compulsory retirement and held that the in public interest, the State has a right to retire a person. The Court observed as under:
"16. xxx xxx
34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 10 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interefere if they are satisfied that, the order is passed
(a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary--in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.
(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter--of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years.
The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference."
17. It is equally well settled that once there is an entry of 'integrity doubtful' in the service-record of an employee then it is considered to be in larger public interest to retire such a person prematurely. In this regard, reliance may be placed to the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India versus Ajoy Kumar Patnaik (1995) 6 SCC 442, and Jugal Chandra Saikia versus State of Assam (2003) 4 SCC 59. In para 5 of the judgment in Jugal Chandra Saikia's case (supra) it has been noticed that the review committee had concluded that the delinquent employee had outlived its utility and was of doubtful integrity. In Jugal Chandra Saikia's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme has followed and applied the principles of law as laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (1992) 2 SCC
299. In light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jugal Chandra Saikia's case (supra), Division Bench judgment of this Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 11 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 Court in Chander Bhan Arya Vs. The Secretary to Government, Haryana & another 1997 (3) RSJ 626, which has been relied on by the learned counsel, could not have been considered and relied upon." The tests laid down in the aforesaid case are satisfied in the present case as well.
Before concluding, we may mention another argument raised by Mr. Bawa that the petitioner's case for retention in service beyond the age of 58 years was required to be considered before attaining such age, but the respondents have passed an order of compulsory retirement on the petitioner attaining the age of 55 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to amendment, whereby proviso was inserted vide notification dated 01.02.1995 w.e.f. 01.01.1993 that in case of a member of the Judicial Service, if he had entered Government Service before or after attaining the age of thirty-five years, his case for retention in service beyond the age of fifty-eight years, shall be considered before he attains such age.
Before considering the said argument, relevant Rules i.e. 3.26 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, read with Rule 5.32(A) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II are required to be extracted. The same are as under:
"3.26. (a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, every Government employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. He must not be retained in service after the age of retirement, except in exceptional circumstances with the sanction of the competent authority on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing.
Provided that the age of compulsory retirement for the members of the Judicial Services, blind and Class IV Government employees shall be sixty years.Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 12
CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 Provided further that a Government employee whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding months on attaining the age of fifty-eight or sixty years, as the case may be.
Provided that a member of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) or the Superior Judicial Service shall be required to retire on attaining the age of sixty years, if High Court is satisfied of his continued utility to the Judicial system, subject to evaluation of his potential by making on objective assessment of his work, conduct and integrity and also keeping in view the reputation acquired by him as a Judicial Officer and has passed an order in this regard, otherwise the Judicial Officer will retire at the age of fifty eight years.
xxx xxx
(d) The appointing authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government employee other than Class IV Government employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notices:-
(i) if he is in Class I and Class II Service or post and had entered Government service, before attaining the age of thirty-five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years; and
(ii) (a) If he is in class I or class II Service or post, or
(b) If he is Class I or Class II Service or post and entered Government service after attaining the age of thirty-five years; after he has attained the age of fifty-five years.
Provided that in the case of a member of the Judicial Service, if he had entered Government service before or after attaining the age of thirty- five years, his case for retention in service beyond the age of fifty-eight years, shall be considered before he attains such age. Provided that in the case of member of the Judicial Service, he shall have the option to retire at the age of fifty-eight years, which should be exercised by him in writing before he attains the age of fifty-seven years. A member who does not exercise such option before he attains the age of fifty seven years, would be deemed to have opted for continuing in Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 13 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 service till the superannuation age of sixty years with the liability to compulsory retirement at the age of fifty-eight years;
The Government employee would stand retired immediately on payment of three months pay and allowance in lieu of the notice period and will not be in service thereafter."
"5.32-A. (a) xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx Note - 1. - The Government retains an absolute right to retire any Government employee after he has completed twenty-five years of service qualifying for pension if he is holding a pensionable post or has completed service for a similar period if he is holding a non-pensionable post, but is entitled to the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund, without giving any reasons and no claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right will not be exercised except when it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of a Government employee such as on account of inefficiency, dishonesty, corruption or infamous conduct. This clause (b) of this rule is intended for use--
(i) xxx xxx
(ii) xxx xxx
The word "Government" used in this note should be interpreted to mean the authority which has the power of removing the Government employee from service under the Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules.
Note - 2 - xxx xxx
Note - 3 - xxx xxx
(c) A retiring pension is also granted to a Government employee other than a Class IV Government employee, -
(1) who is retired by the appointing authority by giving him a notice of not less than three months in writing, -
(i) If he is in class I or class II service or post and had enacted Government service before attaining the age of thirty-five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years; and
(ii) (a) If he is in class III service or post; or
(b) If he is in Class I or class II service or post and entered Government service after attaining the age of thirty-five years, after he has attained the age of fifty five years;Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 14
CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 Provided that in the case of a member of the judicial services, a retiring pension shall be granted if he is required to retire at the age of fifty-eight years irrespective of age at the time of entry into Government service subject to ten year qualifying service.
(2) Who, if from category (1)(i) above retires on or after attaining the age of fifty years, or if from category (1)(ii) above retires on/or after attaining the age of fifty five years or if from category of judicial service retires on or after attaining the age of fifty-eight years, by giving a notice of not less than three months, in writing, of his intention to retire, to the appointing authority:
Provided that where the notice is given before attaining the age of fifty years, fifty-five years in the case of Civil Services and fifty-eight years in the case of judicial services, as the case may be, it shall be given effect to from a date not earlier than the date on which the age of fifty years/fifty five years. In the case of Civil Services and fifty-eight years in the case of judicial services, as the case may be, is attained. Note - Appointing authority retains an absolute right to retire any Government employee referred to above on or after he has attained the age of fifty years, or fifty-five years in the case of Civil Services, of fifty- eight years in the case of Judicial services, as the case may be, without assigning any reason. A corresponding right is also available to such a Government employee to retire on or after he has attained the age of fifty years, fifty-five years, as the case may be."
In terms of Rule 3.26(a), as reproduced above, the age of compulsory retirement for the Members of Judicial Services is 60 years, but a member of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) or the Superior Judicial Service shall be required to retire on attaining the age of 60 years, if High Court is satisfied of his continued utility to the Judicial system, subject to evaluation of his potential by making on objective assessment of his work, conduct and integrity and also keeping in view the reputation acquired by him as a Judicial Officer, otherwise the Judicial Officer will retire at the age of 58 years. It is decision in affirmative of the High Court to allow a judicial officer to continue in service on attaining the age of 58 years.Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 15
CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 Sub Rule (d) of Rule 3.26 provides option to a Member of the Judicial Service to retire at the age of 58 years. The Member of the judicial service are also the Government servant and thus, the option to retire an employee at the age of 50 or 55 years is also available as is power to compulsory retire any State Government employee. Since all other Government employees retire at the age of 58 years, the proviso inserted vide notification dated 01.02.1995 is in respect of Members of Judicial Services alone, as the superannuation age of such Judicial Officers is 60 years. But that amendment does not denude the employer from compulsory retiring an employee on attaining the age of 50 or 55 years at par with all other State Government employees.
This Court has the occasion to examine the grant of benefits to the Member of Judicial Services at par with the Government employees in CWP No.14573 of 2011 titled "Haryana Judges Association Vs. State of Haryana & another" decided on 07.02.2013, wherein it has been held to the following effect:
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the action of the State Government is discriminatory, irrational and arbitrary. The benefit of cash payment in lieu of Leave Travel Concession is not envisaged in the report of the Shetty Commission. The action of the State in treating the judicial officers to deny the benefit of cash payment in creation of a class within the employees of the State Government. The order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association (3) v. Union of India, reported as (2002) 4 SCC 247, does not prohibit granting of any other benefit to the judicial officers in terms of the scheme framed by the State from time to time. The order in the said case does not permit the State Government to deny the benefit which is confered on the other employees of the State. All the employees of the State have to be treated at par in the matter of grant of benefits such as Leave Travel Concession which has been granted to all other employees Kumar Vimal 2013.08.08 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5173 of 1996, 16 CWP No.164 of 1996 & CWP No.3358 of 1999 of the State irrespective of their rank and status. Consequently, we find that the Clause 4 of the Circular dated 28.12.2010, is wholly illegal and violative of the equality in the matter of benefits to the state employees."
Thus, the argument that a Member of the Judicial Service can be retired only on attaining the age of 58 years is not contemplated by the scheme of the Rules nor the order passed warrants interference in public interest. Thus, we do not find any merit in such argument as well.
In view of above, all the writ petitions are dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
29.07.2013 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE
Kumar Vimal
2013.08.08 14:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh