BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGH ETC. versus STA TE OF BIHAR AND ORS

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 15-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGH ETC. 
v. 
STA TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 15, 2000 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Superannuation-Age of-Judicial Officer challenging the decision 
not to confer on him the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation 
from 58 years to 60 years-Contention that such a benefit granted by Supreme 
Court and it has the effect of amending the service rules and extending by 
its own force, the age of retirement of judicial officers to 60 years-Tenability 
D of-Held, by force of the judgement judicial officer does not acquire a right 
to continue in service upto the extended age of 60 years-It is only a benefit 
conferred on the judicial officers subject to an evaluation as to their continued 
utility to the judicial system, to be carried out by the respective High Courts-
!f the High Court finds a judicial officer not entitled to the benefit of extension 
in superannuation age, he would retire at the age of superannuation as per 
E the service rules-Evaluation Committee forming an opinion taking an overall 
view of the service record, with requisite emphasis on recent performance-
The opinion so formed was neither arbitrary nor based on no material-
Held, no right inhers in the petitioner to continue in service beyond the age 
of 58 years which is the age of retirement of judicial officers under the 
p existing Rules applicable to the petitioner. 
Judicial Officers-Evaluation of pe1formance by the High Court-
Opinion that the officer concerned does not have utility for continued service 
so as to be retained beyond 58 years of age and thar the officer concerned 
be allowed to retire at the normal age of superannuation-Implication of-
G Held, such superannuation cannot be called 'compulsory retirement "because 
the officer has neither been given the benefit of extended age of 
superannuation nor was being retired prematurely nor was he being 
'compulsorily retired' in the sense the expression is known to service 
jurisprudence but was being allowed to retire at the age of superannuation 
H appointed by the service rules governing him-Constitution of India, 1950-
718 
B.P. SINGH v. STATE 
719 
Article, 235. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Compulsory Retirement "-Meaning of in the context of Constitution 
of India, 1950-Artic/e 311-Fundamental Rules-Rule 56 0). 
A 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 235-Administrative and B 
disciplinary control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary-
Assessment of performance of judicial officers being an ongoing process, 
periodical inspections and timely entries in service records to be made-· 
Communication thereof to judicial officers- -Affording right of representation 
in case of adverse entry-Need for-Emphasised. 
C 
The petitioner-both of them judicial officers, challenged the order 
denying them the benefit of increase in superannuation age from 58 to 60 
years. The Evaluation Committee of the High Court consisting of 8 judges 
and presided over by the Chief Justice, held its meeting for consideration of 
the agenda of granting benefit of increase in the retirement age from 58 to D 
60 years to judicial officers as per the directions of this Court in All India 
Judges 'Association v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 119 and All India 
Judges' Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 11993] 4 SCC 288. As 
regards the petitioners, the Evaluation Committee formed the opinion that 
their further continuance in service would not be in public interest as they 
did not have potential for continued useful service. Hence the present petitions. E 
On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that in view of the decision 
of this Court in 11992] 1SCC119and11993] 4 SCC 288, the retirement age 
of judicial officers stood increased to 60 years and before attaining such age 
of retirement, the petitioners could not have been made to retire at the age of 
58 years except by following the procedure applicable to compulsory F 
retirement; that the order of retirement could be passed only by the Governor; 
that as the State/Governor had not passed any order of retirement, the 
petitioners could not be made to retire by the High Court acting on its own; 
that the impugned order was arbitrary, based on no material and hence vitiated; 
and that the direction made by this Court had the effect of amending the G 
service rules and extending by its own force, the age of retirement of judicial 
officers to 60 y

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.