Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1466 (RAJ)

Mohd. Raheem Farooqui v. State of Rajasthan

2003-10-30

KHEM CHAND SHARMA, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - By order dated 12.5.2003, the petitioner, an officer of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (for short 'RHJS') has to retire from service w.e.f. 31 10.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. Impugning the said order the petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks direction to allow him to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The petitioner also seeks to declare as ultra vires the Exception appended to Rule 56-A of Rajasthan Service Rules (for short 'RSR'). 2. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that on several occasions service record of the petitioner was assessed and evaluated and after finding it unblemished and satisfactory the petitioner was given promotion to RHJS and granted Senior Scale of RJS. The petitioner, in view of the ratio indicated in All India Judges Association v. UOI (2002) 4 SCC 247 (for short 'Ill All India Judges case') could not have been retired till the completion of 60 years of age. It is further pleaded that there was no basis to hold that the petitioner did not have potential for continued judicial purposes in the is service. The service record of the petitioner was nor considered objectively and action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on completion of 58 years of age and not extending the retiring age till 60 years, is arbitrary and perverse. it is also stated that Exception to Rule 56-A of RSR being violative to Article 14 of the Constitution deserves to be quashed. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us and scanned the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Seven Hon'ble Judges headed by the Chief Justice and other relevant record. Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 (for short All India Judges case') the matter of several judicial officers (including the petitioner) was placed before the Committee for consideration to give them benefit of extension upto the age of 60 years. The Committee on examination of the service record, character roll. quality of work, disposal, integrity, general reputation, potentiality and utility, found that the petitioner is not fit to be given the benefit of extension. The Committee on examination of the service record, character roll. quality of work, disposal, integrity, general reputation, potentiality and utility, found that the petitioner is not fit to be given the benefit of extension. On a close scrutiny of the report of the Committee we find that the Committee had extensively scanned the entire record with minute details before arriving at the conclusion. In the opinion of the Committee the petitioner did not possess sufficient potentiality and utility so as to give him the benefit of extension of service upto the age of 60 years. The Full Court has also put its seal of approval on the report of Committee. We do not see any merit in the submission that service record of the petitioner was not considered objectively. 4. In All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119 (hereinafter referred to as 'I All India Judges case') the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the States and the 'Union Territories to fix the age of superannuation of the judicial officers at 60 years w.e.f. 31.12.1992. 'I All India Judges case' was reviewed in 'II All India Judges case') (1993) 4 SCC 288 ) and direction with regard to the enhancement of the superannuation age was modified thus: (para 52(6)). ".....While the superannuation age of every subordinate judicial officer shall stand extended upto 60 years, the respective High Courts should, as stated above assess and evaluate the record of the judicial officer for his continued utility well within time before he attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation age from 58 to 60 years only if he is found fit and eligible to continue in service. In case he is not found fit and eligible, he should be compulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 58 years." 5. In paras 2 and 3 of III All India Judges case [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court incorporated the directions issued about the superannuation age of subordinate judicial officer in I and II All India Judges case and with reference to those directions, indicated in para 26 as under: "26. The Shetty Commission had recommended that there should be an increase in retirement age from 60 to 62 years. The Shetty Commission had recommended that there should be an increase in retirement age from 60 to 62 years. In our opinion, this cannot be done for the simple reasoli that the age of retirement of a High Court Judge is constitutionally fixed at 62 years. It will not be appropriate, seeing the constitutional framework with regard to the judiciary, to have an identical age of retirement between the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and a High Court. As of today, the age of retirement of a Supreme Court Judge is 65 years, of a High Court Judge it is 62 years and logically the age of retirement of judicial officer is 60 years. This difference is appropriate and has to be maintained...." 6. The argument to the effect that the benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years was available automatically to the petitioner in view of observations made in III All India Judges case, is fallacious. Only those judicial officers who have a potential for continued useful service, are entitled to this benefit. As propounded in II All India Judges case, it is not intended as windfall for the indolent, the infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. The potential for continued utility is assessed and evaluated by the Committee of Judges headed by the Chief Justice on the basis of the judicial officer's past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters. 7. That takes us to the Exception appended to Rule 56-A of RSR which provides thus: "The retirement age of officers of Rajasthan Judicial Service and Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service shall be 58 years extensible upto 60 who are considered to have a potential for continue useful purpose by the Committee of Judges of the Rajasthan High Court headed by Chief Justice." 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of afore quoted Exception in Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SC 545 and observed as under: ".....the exclusionary clause contained in the Exception points out to the applicability of the rules and thus it must be held that the members of the judicial service come within the purview there of. The contention of the appellants to the effect that the said Exception runs contrary to the decisions of this Court in All India Judges Association case is not correct. The contention of the appellants to the effect that the said Exception runs contrary to the decisions of this Court in All India Judges Association case is not correct. The said Exception, in our opinion, has been provided in conformity with the directions contained in the said decision." 9. For the reasons aforementioned the writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. *******