Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993
1. Direction with regard to the enhancement of
superannuation age of judicial officers given in All India
Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. -
Article 235 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa & Anr on 26 June, 2000
In Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court
of Orissa & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 332, Orissa Service Code
governing the age of retirement of the petitioner was not
amended. The petitioner, retired at the age of 58 years,
filed a petition under Article 32 contending that the age of
superannuation had stood extended to 60 years by 1993 case.
A 2-Judges Bench of this court held:-
Shyamlal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 February, 1963
Compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two
meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, compulsory
retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent
government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being
recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves
stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following procedure
prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the
principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting
such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory
retirement in the case of a government servant must also
withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Then there are service rules, such as Rule 56(j) of
Fundamental Rules, which confer on the Government or the
appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right
to retire a government servant on his attaining a particular
age or on his having completed a certain number of years of
service on formation of an opinion that in public interest
it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant.
In that case, it is neither a punishment nor a penalty with
loss of retiral benefits. (See Shyamlal Vs. State of U.P.
(1955) 1 SCR 26; Brijmohansingh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab
(1987) 2 SCC 188; Ramchandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa
(1994) Supple 3 SCC 424; BaikunthNath Das & Anr. Vs.
Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr. (1992) 2
SCC 299). More appropriately it is like premature
retirement. It does not cast any stigma. The government
servant shall be entitled to the pension actually earned and
other retiral benefits. So long as the opinion forming
basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public
interest is formed bonafide, the opinion cannot be
ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an
order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited
grounds such as the order being malafide, based on no
material or on collateral grounds or having been passed by
an authority not competent to do so. The object of such
compulsory retirement is not to punish or penalise the
government servant but to weed out the worthless who have
lost their utility for the administration by their
insensitive, unintelligent or dubious conduct impeding the
flow of administration or promoting stagnation.
S. Ramachandra Raju vs State Of Orissa on 31 August, 1994
Compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two
meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, compulsory
retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent
government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being
recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves
stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following procedure
prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the
principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting
such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory
retirement in the case of a government servant must also
withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Then there are service rules, such as Rule 56(j) of
Fundamental Rules, which confer on the Government or the
appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right
to retire a government servant on his attaining a particular
age or on his having completed a certain number of years of
service on formation of an opinion that in public interest
it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant.
In that case, it is neither a punishment nor a penalty with
loss of retiral benefits. (See Shyamlal Vs. State of U.P.
(1955) 1 SCR 26; Brijmohansingh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab
(1987) 2 SCC 188; Ramchandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa
(1994) Supple 3 SCC 424; BaikunthNath Das & Anr. Vs.
Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr. (1992) 2
SCC 299). More appropriately it is like premature
retirement. It does not cast any stigma. The government
servant shall be entitled to the pension actually earned and
other retiral benefits. So long as the opinion forming
basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public
interest is formed bonafide, the opinion cannot be
ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an
order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited
grounds such as the order being malafide, based on no
material or on collateral grounds or having been passed by
an authority not competent to do so. The object of such
compulsory retirement is not to punish or penalise the
government servant but to weed out the worthless who have
lost their utility for the administration by their
insensitive, unintelligent or dubious conduct impeding the
flow of administration or promoting stagnation.
High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Through ... vs Ishwar Chand Jain And Anr. Etc on 26 April, 1999
A number of decisions dealing with the object and
purpose of writing confidential reports and care and caution
to be adopted while making entries in the confidential
records of government officers have been referred to in the
cases of Sarnam Singh (supra, vide para 31, 32) as also in
the case of Ishwar Chand Jain (supra). We need not repeat
the same. Suffice it to observe that the well-recognised
and accepted practice of making annual entries in the
confidential records of subordinate officials by superiors
has a public policy and purposive requirement. It is one of
the recognised and time-tested modes of exercising
administrative and disciplinary control by a superior
authority over its subordinates. The very power to make
such entries as have potential for shaping the future career
of a subordinate officer casts an obligation on the High
Courts to keep a watch and vigil over the performance of the
members of subordinate judiciary. An assessment of quality
and quantity of performance and progress of the judicial
officers should be an ongoing process continued round the
year and then to make a record in an objective manner of the
impressions formulated by such assessment. An annual entry
is not an instrument to be wielded like a teachers cane or
to be cracked like a whip. The High Court has to act and
guide the subordinate officers like a guardian or elder in
the judicial family. The entry in the confidential rolls
should not be a reflection of personal whims, fancies or
prejudices, likes or dislikes of a superior. The entry must
reflect the result of an objective assessment coupled with
an effort at guiding the judicial officers to secure an
improvement in his performance where need be; to admonish
him with the object of removing for future, the shortcoming
found; and expressing an appreciation with an idea of
toning up and maintaining the immitable qualities by
affectionately patting on the back of meritorious and
deserving. An entry consisting of a few words, or a
sentence or two, is supposed to reflect the sum total of the
impressions formulated by the inspecting judge who had the
opportunity of forming those impressions in his mind by
having an opportunity of watching the judicial officer round
the period under review. In the very nature of things, the
process is complex and the formulation of impressions is a
result of multiple factors simultaneously playing in the
mind. The perceptions may differ. In the very nature of
things there is a difficulty nearing an impossibility in
subjecting the entries in confidential rolls to judicial
review. Entries either way have serious implications on the
service career. Hence the need for fairness, justness and
objectivity in performing the inspections and making the
entries in the confidential rolls.
High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad vs Sarnam Singh & Anr on 15 December, 1999
The abovesaid observations were reiterated by this
Court in High Court of Judicature At Allahabad Through
Registrar Vs. Sarnam Singh Ors. - (2000) 2 SCC 339 with a
note that they indicated the attitude and objectivity to be
adopted by the inspecting judges while objectively expected
considering the work and conduct of the judicial officers
who have to work under difficult and trying circumstances.
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
All India Judges' Association vs Union Of India on 13 November, 1991
In All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India &
Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 119 (hereinafter referred to as 1992
case), the landmark decision taking care of betterment of
service conditions of subordinate judiciary one of the
directions given in the judgment was to raise the retirement
age of judicial officers to 60 years uniformly throughout
the country and appropriate steps in that regard being taken
by December 31, 1992. The court was at pains in
demonstrating how the members of judicial services stand on
pedastal different from other civil services and, therefore,
deserve to be dealt with by ameliorating service conditions
so as to provide initiative for attracting better persons in
judicial services and which would tend to raise the tone and
morale of the judicial services as a whole, the services
being essential bulwark of democracy.