Ajit Kumar Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 31 October, 2023
same adverse remarks he was given compulsory
retirement while reviewing his service at the age of 58
years, without there being any subsequent or additional
adverse remarks/service records, apart from promotions
being given to petitioner therein in between. Therefore,
this Court quashed the order of compulsory retirement and
directed reinstatement of the said employee in service with
back wages. In the instant case the three instances of
remote past for which the petitioner was cautioned,
censured and warned were of very minor nature and the
same were considered while reviewing the service of the
petitioner at the age of 50 years and the Review
Committee as well as the Full Court did not give him
compulsory retirement at that stage and allowed him to
continue in service, evidently considering the said
incidents as not justifying giving of compulsory,
retirement. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the
cadre of District Judge and even those incidents did not
furnish ground for withholding promotion. As to conduct
and performance, except for the years 2001, 2006 and the
first half of 2008 when his overall rating was 'average',
there was no allegation about his integrity. On the other
hand, the rating of the petitioner as 'average' for the years
2001, 2006 and the first half of 2008 was also available to
// 35 //
the Review Committee as well as to the Full Court of the
High Court during the review of his service at the age of
50 years in November, 2008. These ratings and the three
adverse remarks described earlier could not persuade the
High Court to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner
then. His ACR for other years was 'good' and 'very good'.
Therefore, without there being any additional or further
adverse remark/service record and having regard to the
decision of this Court in the case of Epari Vasudev Rao
(Supra) we are of the opinion that the Court's decision to
retire the petitioner compulsorily is arbitrary and
unreasonable and, therefore, the impugned order of
compulsory retirement under Annexure-9 cannot be
sustained. Accordingly we quash the said order.
The petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation, i.e.,
60 years in May, 2017, and, therefore, there is no scope to
direct his reinstatement in service. However, we direct that
he must be deemed to have continued in service from the
date of his compulsory retirement till the date of his
superannuation at the age of 60 years and he shall be given
his salary at the time scale of pay for the post he was
holding at the time of compulsory retirement for the said
period and retiral benefits accordingly.