Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992
Hon'ble the Supreme Court held
that the High Court has erred in applying principles laid
down in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), as in order
to decide this question entire service record is to be taken
into consideration which would include ACR's of period prior
to promotion. Such an order originates from mixed bag of
ACR's though the recent reports carry their own weight,
hence order of the High Court to intervene and set aside
premature retirement was considered unsustainable.
State Of Orissa & Ors vs Ram Chandra Das on 8 May, 1996
(ii) In the case of Ram Chandra Das (Supra), Apex Court
dealt with two fold questions that whether adverse entries
and pending departmental proceedings would be sufficient
to compulsorily retire the Government servant and whether
respondent was entitled to get benefit of pension when
compulsorily retired? Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that
self-same material after promotion may not be taken into
(Downloaded on 02/12/2024 at 09:19:22 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:47865] (16 of 24) [CW-13123/2024]
consideration to deny further promotion, but such material
is nevertheless crucial for the Government to decide
necessity of such Government servant to continue in
services. Merely, because a promotion was given even after
adverse entries were made in the service record, cannot be
a ground to hold that compulsorily retirement of the
Government servant could not be ordered and respondent
was held entitled to all the pensionary benefits, as
compulsory retirement is not a punishment.
Central Industrial Security Force vs Hc(Gd) Om Prakash on 4 February, 2022
(v) In the case of Central Industrial Security Force (supra),
appeal was filed challenging Division Bench judgment
whereby order of premature retirement against the
respondent was set aside.
Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. vs Hari Kishan Verma on 27 March, 2015
(ii) In the case of Punjab State Power Corporation (supra),
the singular question that arose for consideration before the
Apex Court was whether the order passed by PSEB of
compulsorily retiring its employee is sustainable in law or is
it vulnerable being ex-facie stigmatic. Hon'ble the Supreme
Court while affirming the retirement has held that the
decision has been taken after entire record having been
scrutinized, taking into consideration valid punishments and
critically scrutinizing the ACRs.
Ashok Kumar Tyagi vs High Court Of Judicature And Anr on 26 October, 2017
(v) In the case of Ashok Kumar Tyagi (supra), the petitioner
has challenged the action of the High Court and State
Government in compulsorily retiring him from judicial
services. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while observing that
neither the opinion of committee was arbitrary nor capricious
nor can be said to be irrational, so as to shock the
conscience of this court to warrant any interference, held
that the High court or this Court would not examine the
matter as appellate court but they may interfere if they are
satisfied that the order has been passed (a) mala-fide (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.
Shiv Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 9 December, 2015
(i) In the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (supra), the
petitioner was made to compulsorily retire by a Screening
Committee, which was constituted for screening the cases of
those officers of the D.H.J.S. and Delhi Judicial Service, for
considering the question whether those Judicial Officers
should be continued in service or should be prematurely
retired in public interest. It was held by the Apex Court that
while undertaking the exercise of judicial review, 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
honesty and integrity of judges is expected to be beyond
doubt.
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs Union Of India Throu.Chairman ... on 2 September, 2019
(vi) In the case of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj (Supra), the
order of Hon'ble the President of India to compulsorily retire
appellant was challenged. While allowing the appeal it was
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that such decision was not
taken till very fag end of his career. The Court was rather
doubtful about approach of the respondents in light of
sudden apparent contradictions, when just 3 months were
left for appellant's retirement. Considering that the said
order was rather punitive and was passed with the sole
vendetta to ensure his immediate removal, Apex Court held
(Downloaded on 02/12/2024 at 09:19:22 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:47865] (18 of 24) [CW-13123/2024]
that the same clearly failed to qualify the underlying test of
public interest.
Satbir Singh vs Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. on 25 October, 2017
(i) Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRS &
Ors. vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.,
reported in (2011) 10 SCC 1.
K S Saini, S D O Iii vs Union Of India on 29 January, 2015
(iii) In the case of I.K. Mishra (supra), the appellant while
working as Auditor was accorded selection grade and
subsequently compulsorily retired from services. The
question was - whether it was justified for the High Court to
intervene in case of compulsory retirement?
1