Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 608 (JHR)

Nritya Nand Sinha v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-08-10

ALTAMAS KABIR, R.K.MERATHIA

body2005
ORDER Altamas Kabir, C.J. 1. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the instance writ application is that he has been denied the benefit of extension of service from 58 years 60 years in the Jharkhand Judicial Service Cadre. The petitioner joined the Bihar Judicial service on 9th June, 1975 and his services were subsequently confirmed in the post of the Munsif. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge was posted as Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Sub Judge-1 and was posted at Patna before being posted as Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI at Dhanbad in the year 1985. According to the writ petitioner, although he was always considered to be an officer of high integrity and had performed his judicial duties with excellence, he was informed by the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court by letter dated 20th July, 2001 that the Jharkhand High Court had decided not to grant him the benefit of extension of his services from 58 years to 60 years in terms of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case the All India Judges Association v. Union of India, . Aggrieved by the decision of the Jharkhand High Court not to extend his services, the writ petitioner has moved the instant writ application for a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to . grant him extension of service upto 60 years with entire consequential benefits. The writ petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to consider his promotion to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service, which promotion had been given to his juniors. 2. Appearing in support of the writ application, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned Advocate, submitted that the decision taken not to extent the petitioners service was not in keeping with the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association case (supra) in which certain guidelines have been given as to how an assessment is to be made for the purpose of enhancing the service of an officer from 58 years to 60 years. Mr. Krishna submitted that having regard to the unblemished service rendered by the petitioner, the High Court should have held that the petitioner had a potential for continued useful services on the basis whereof his services should have been extended from 58 years to 60 years. 3. Mr. Mr. Krishna submitted that having regard to the unblemished service rendered by the petitioner, the High Court should have held that the petitioner had a potential for continued useful services on the basis whereof his services should have been extended from 58 years to 60 years. 3. Mr. Krishna then relied on of repeated decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Baikunth Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Paripada, wherein while considering the issue of compulsory retirement, it was observed that an order of compulsory retirement has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. Mr. Krishna urged that it had also been observed that the Government would have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter--ofcourse, attaching more importance to the record of and performance during the later years. If a Government servant is promoted to a highest post notwithstanding any adverse remarks, such remarks tend to lost their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. Mr. Krishna urged that since the writ petitioner had been promoted to the post of Sub Judge-1-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, it would have to be presumed that any deficiency of the writ petitioner stood wiped out on account of such promotion. 4. Mr. Krishna lastly referred to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, , where similar principles have been reiterated. Mr. Krishna urged that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of extension of service from 58 years to 60 years with all consequently reliefs on account thereof, including promotion, with effect from the date persons junior to the petitioner had been given such promotion. 5. Appearing for the High Court, Mr. R.S. Majumdar, pointed out that although it had been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioners services were unblemished, from the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the writ petitioner as set out in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit affirmed on behalf of the High Court, it would be evident that the petitioners performance was average. Mr. Mr. Majumdar submitted that in keeping with the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association case (supra), the High Court was entrusted with the job of evaluation and assessment of an officers usefulness so as to be allowed the benefit of extension of service from 58 years 60 years. Mr. Majumdar urged that upon the said exercise being undertaken, the High Court was of the view that the petitioners performance did not merit extension of his services from 58 years to 60 years. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and upon perusal of the extract from the ACR of the petitioner, it is clear that the decision not to extend the petitioners service was taken by the High Court upon a subjective satisfaction of his performance which does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction. 7. In any event, no irregular and/or jurisdictional error has been pointed out, which would warrant interference with the decision impugned in this writ application. The writ application therefore fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.