Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. The enhancement of the superannuation age of 60 years coupled with the provision for compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years introduced a change in the service condition of the Judicial Officers in the State. An amendment to KCSR by way of insertion of Rule 95A was made by the State Government on 26/08/1997 with effect from 1/1/1993. The same reads as follows:

"[95-A. The age of retirement of Judicial Officers shall be raised to 60 years subject to the following conditions, namely:-

The extension of the age of superannuation for all Government servants to 60 years in the State in the year 2008 automatically brought about a parity between the Judicial Officers and Government servants in the State. Consequently Rule 95A was omitted with effect from 18.12.2008. It is significant to note that the modified direction in the second of the All India Judges' Assn. was made having regard to the fact that the age of retirement of Government servants was 55 or 58 as the case may be in the States but for Judicial Officers it was fixed at 60 years. Therefore the assessment prior to the age of 58 years was made in order to ascertain as to whether the Judicial Officers could be continued till 60 years. With the State Government increasing the age of superannuation to 60 years for all Government servants across the board, a question would arise as to whether the age of retirement at 60 years for Judicial Officers is still not automatic and would depend on their crossing the efficiency bar. However, we express no opinion on that aspect as in these cases we are concerned with compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 285 of the KCSR except re iterating what has been said by the Apex Court in Bishwanath Pratap Singh that the said evaluation at 58 years is an ad hoc measure to be adhered to till the amendment is made to the service Rules extending the age of superannuation of Judicial Officers to 60 years. What is significant as far as State of Karnataka is concerned is that the age of superannuation has been enhanced to 60 years en masse.

29. But the Apex Court while enhancing the age to 60 years however made it clear that the age of retirement of the subordinate Judicial Officers was extended up to 60 years and that an evaluation ought to be made before the officer attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for compulsory retirement under the relevant Service Rules applicable, for the purpose of evaluation. But, the said evaluation is in addition to and independent of the assessment for compulsory retirement that may have to be undertaken under the relevant Service rules, at an earlier stage/s. Therefore evaluation for the purpose of continuing a Judicial Officers beyond 58 years is distinct from considering whether a Judicial Officers should be compulsorily retired from service in public interest, even though the nature and procedure of evaluation is identical. Therefore it becomes clear that assessment is for the purpose of continuing a Judicial Officer beyond 58 years. Such an understanding is apparent by the fact that Rule 95A was inserted to KCSR pursuant to the dictum in the second of the All India Judges Assn. and was subsequently deleted on 18.12.2008, on raising the age of superannuation for Government servants including Judicial Officers to 60 years in the State. Moreover even when Rule 95A was on the Rule book, exercise of power under Rule 285 under which the respondent officers are compulsorily retired was prevalent. Indeed Rule 285 has been invoked prior to as well as subsequent to the decisions in All India Judges Assn. and is de hors the dicta in the said case which essentially raised the age of superannuation of Judicial Officers to 60 years throughout the country, amongst other directions. Thus the exercise of power under Rule 285 is distinct from the evaluation of the Judicial Officers for the purpose of continuing them beyond the age of 58 years. Moreover such an evaluation according to the Apex Court was to be made as an ad hoc arrangements till an amendment was made to the service Rules enhancing the age of superannuation to 60 years by the states and the Union Territories. As far as the State of Karnataka is concerned the enhancement of the age of superannuation to 60 years has been made for the Government servants as well as for Judicial Officers. Therefore the validity of the exercise of power under Rule 285 has to considered in the present cases, keeping in mind the aforesaid background and de hors the enhancement of the age of superannuation of Judicial Officers to 60 years.

33. As far as the State of Karnataka is concerned, the KCSR is applicable to the Judicial Officers also. Also there are no separate Rules of Retirement made applicable to the Judicial Officers in the State. As observed above Rule 95A was added to KCSR pursuant to the decision in All India Judges' Assn. and the same was deleted when the age of superannuation was raised to 60 years in the State. Therefore, the consideration to be made just prior to 58 years for the purpose of continuing or not continuing such an officer upto 60 years is now rendered otiose. Hence, it is under Rule 285 itself that the case of the Judicial Officers has to be considered and in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 285 of KCSR compulsory retirement in public interest is envisaged. Also, it would be relevant to rely upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajagopal Gangadhar Sajekhar v. High Court of Karnataka [ILR 2001 Kar. 29] and in G.V.Naik vs. State of Karnataka and Another [ILR 2000 Kar. 881], wherein, the applicability of sub-rule (4) of Rule 285 for a compulsory retirement of a Judicial Officers in public interest has been affirmed. Such a consideration can also be on completion of 50 or 55 years of age as the case may be or on completion of 20 years of service. Therefore the contention that on the deletion of Rule 95A, the concept of compulsory retirement in public interest is obliterated from the Rule book is incorrect. As stated above, the evaluation under Rule 95A and Rule 285 are for different purposes though the manner of evaluation is similar. Thus compulsory retirement in public interest under Rule 285 was in vogue prior to the decisions in All India Judges' Assn. and continues to be invoked even after the deletion of Rule 95A of the KCSR which was introduced pursuant to the decision in the first of the All India Judges' Assn. It is needless to mention that both Rule 285 as well as Rule 95A could have been invoked in the case of a Judicial Officers in the state prior to the deletion of Rule 95A. Thus the deletion of Rule 95A has made no impact on the invocation of Rule 285.