Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioner is a member of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service. While working as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry as per Ext. P1 order dated 11.10.96. Thereafter, by Ext. P7 order dated 23.6.1998, the first respondent compulsorily retired the petitioner with effect from 30.6.1998 stating that the petitioner was not fit and eligible to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years. Ext. P7 order has been passed in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judge's Association v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SCC 2493) and also under R.60(aa) of Part I of Kerala Rules and R.7(A) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961. In All India Judges' Association case, the Supreme Court dealt with the age of superannuation of the judicial Officers as follows: "There is, however, one aspect we should emphasise here. To what extent the direction contained in the main judgment under review shall stand modified. The benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a potential for continued useful service. It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. The potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate committees of judges of the respective High Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the judicial Officers' pas record of Service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant mailers. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain theageof58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service Rules applicable to the Officers. Those who will not be found fit and eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement. Those who will not be found fit and eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement. The exercise should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58 years even in cases where earlier the age of superannuation was less than 58 years. It is necessary to make it clear that this assessment is for the purpose of fin ding out the suitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of the benefit of the increased age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. It is in addition to the assessment to the undertaken for compulsory retirement and the compulsory retirement at the earlier stages under the respective Service Rules. The enactment of the superannuation age to 60 years coupled with the provision for compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years does introduce a change in the service condition of the existing personnel. There may be judicial officers who are not desirous of availing of the benefit of the enhanced superannuation age with the condition of compulsory retirement and may like to opt for retirement at the age of 58 years. In such cases, the concerned officers should intimate in writing their desire to retire at the age of 58 years well in advance and in any case before they attain the age of 57 years. Those who do not do so will be deemed to have exercised their option to continue in service till they attain 60 years of age subject to the authority of being retired compulsorily at the age of 58 years according to the procedure for compulsory retirement laid down in the Service Rules." The R.60(a) of Part-I of Kerala Service Rules was amended accordingly which is as follows: "(aa) An officer in Kerala Judicial Service or Kerala State Higher Judicial Service shal ordinarily retire when he attains the age of 60 years; but he shall have the option to retire where he attains the age of 58 years. His continuance in service beyond the age of 58 years shall however be subject to review by the High Court as per the provisions of the Kerala Judicial Service Rule; and the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules." The special provision regarding retirement was inserted by adding R.7(A) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules. R.7(A) reads as follows: 7A. Special provision regarding retirement: - Without to prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the Kerala Service Rules, if the High Court on an assessment am evaluation of the records of an officer borne in this service, is not satisfied about the continue* utility of the services of that officer and is of the view that such officer is not fit and eligible to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years, such officer may be compulsorily retired on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years, or on the last da; of any later month when such opinion is formed, in accordance with the procedure for compulsory retirement as provided in R.60(aa) of Party Kerala Service Rules". 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. E.V. Nayanar argued that Higher Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order like Ext. P7. According to the learned counsel it is the Governor who is to pass the order of compulsorily retirement against the petitioner. For that purpose, he relied on Art.235 of the Constitution. The above article reads as follows: "235. Control over subordinate Courts:- The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law". At the first blush, the petitioner's argument seems to be attractive and correct. At the first blush, the petitioner's argument seems to be attractive and correct. But closely reading the article as well as the law on the point as expounded by the Supreme Court in various rulings, there cannot be any doubt that the disciplinary control of the members of the Subordinate Judiciary including District judge vests with the High Court, 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi & Ann (1978 (2) SCC 102). In the above case a District Judge was ordered to retire prematurely. The above order was passed on the decision of the administrative committee of the High Court to retire the petitioner therein compulsorily from service. The above decision of the administrative committee was circulated to all the judges of the High Court. Thereafter, the Governor accepted the recommendation of the administrative committee and passed the impugned order. It was argued in the above case that the order is illegal in as much as it was passed under the recommendations of the administrative committee. While 233 of the Constitution requires consultation by the Governor with the entire High Court and not a committee consisting of a few judges' of the Court. Dealing with the above aspect, the Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of disciplinary action against the members of the subordinate Judiciary. The Supreme Court also found that the view of the majority of the High Court Full Bench that by leaving the decision of question of compulsorily retirement to the administrative committee, the court had abdicated its constitutional function is not correct. But I do not find any thing in the above decision to indicate that Art.235 excludes the District Judges from its operation as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The concept of the independence of the judiciary is the hall-mark of Art.235 of the Constitution. In the ruling reported in State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966 SC 447), there is a useful discussion on the above topic by Sri. 4. The concept of the independence of the judiciary is the hall-mark of Art.235 of the Constitution. In the ruling reported in State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966 SC 447), there is a useful discussion on the above topic by Sri. Hidayatullah, J. It is in order to effectuate that high purpose that Art.235 requires all matters relating to the Subordinate Judiciary including compulsorily retirement and disciplinary proceedings but excluding the imposition of punishments falling within the scope of Art.311 and the first appointments and promotions should be dealt with and decided upon by the High Courts in the exercise of the control vested in them. The same question came up again for consideration before the Supreme Court in Samsher Sinsh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1974 SC 2192). In the above ruling, it has been reiterated that the High Court under Art.235 is vested with the control of the Subordinate Judiciary. The members of the Subordinate Judiciary are not only under the control of the High Court but also under the care and custody of the High Court. 5. The order imposing compulsory retirement simpliciter on the member of the Subordinate Judiciary can be passed by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in the ruling reported in State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash an and & Ors. (AIR 1976 SC 1841). In the above ruling, the Supreme Court removed the doubt for ever and held that there is nothing in Art.235 to restrict the control of the High Court in respect of judges other than District Judges in any manner. It was further held that if the State Government is to have the power of deciding whether a judicial Officer should be retained in service after attaining the age of 55 years up to the age of 58 years, that will seriously affect the independence of the judiciary and take away the control vested in the High Court. The High Court is of the opinion that any particular judicial Officer is not fit to be retained in service, the High Court will communicate that to the Governor because the Government is the authority to remove, dismiss, reduce in rank or terminate the appointment. The vesting of complete control of the Subordinate Judiciary in the High Court mean that decision in any matters will bind the State. 6. The vesting of complete control of the Subordinate Judiciary in the High Court mean that decision in any matters will bind the State. 6. The action of the High Court in the matter of compulsory retirement of a member of the subordinate judiciary on the basis of the recommendation of the evaluation committee as decided by the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association case was the subject matter of two full bench decisions of the Patna High Court in 1994 (7) Service Law Reporter 34 and 1997 (4) Service Law Reporter 503. In those decisions, the challenge against the orders of Compulsory retirement was negatived on the ground that the principles indicated in All India Judges' Association case had been followed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the impugned order is a stigma on his character and therefore, is a punishment. Such an argument has been raised before the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. It is enough to quote one of the recent decisions reported in K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India & Ann (1995 (6) SCC 162). Here, it was held that compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within meaning of Art.311 of the Constitution. It is neither punishment nor visits with loss of retrial benefits, nor does it cast stigma. The scope of judicial review should be very limited and the impugned order can be challenged on the ground that the opinion is based on no evidence or has not been formed or that it is a arbitrary decision. Supreme Court also observed the laudable object of such order of compulsory retirement in S. Ram Qiandra Raju v. State of Orissa (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 424) in the following words. The integrity in public service needs to be maintained and the exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on the public servant, but must be checked and reasonable measure must be adopted to ensure efficiency of service that it is free from corruption and the officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be menace to public service and injurious to public interest and the entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the review committee and on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, it was decided that the officer needs to be compulsory retired from service. 8. Ext. P7 reveals that the committee constitute;! and headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court on the basis of records of service and performance assessed and evaluated the potential for continued utility of the said officer. The committee on such assessment and evaluation came to the opinion that the petitioner did not have potential for continued useful service. The High Court considered the opinion of the committee with reference to the relevance materials. The High Court was not satisfied about the continued utility of his services. 9. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner can successfully argue that there were no materials either before the committee of judges' or before the High Court to come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to retain the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years. 10. It was further emphasised by the petitioner that the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry and the above disciplinary action was not pursued and it was wrong on the part of the first respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner without pursuing the disciplinary action. 11. I do not think that there is any thing wrong in not pursuing the disciplinary proceedings to its logical conclusion and instead in deciding to retire the petitioner compulsorily invoking the powers vested with the High Court. 12. The last argument which the petitioner advanced is that the period of suspension was not counted as service for the purpose of calculating the pension and there would be monetary loss to the petitioner. But no orders have so far been passed regularising the period of suspension under R.56 of Part-I of Kerala Service Rules. In passing such an order definitely the petitioner will be given an opportunity of being heard. But no orders have so far been passed regularising the period of suspension under R.56 of Part-I of Kerala Service Rules. In passing such an order definitely the petitioner will be given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the petitioner can very well place all the facts before the first respondent, while orders are being passed as to how the period of suspension is to be treated. Therefore, the Original Petition fails and is dismissed.