LexCHANDRA SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. JULY 22, 2003 B [V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Service Law: c Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (as amended and notified)-Rule 56- Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996-Rule 53-Higher Judicial ,. Service-Retirement-On attaining superannuation age-Rule 56 amended by notification dated 27.6. 1998 raising retirement age to 60 years--Further, by notification dated 28.12.1998 effective from 31.3.1999 retirement age reduced to 58 years requiring government servants crossing 58 years to be D retired on 31.3.1999, subject to the exception that the judicial officers considered to have the potential for continued useful purpose by High Court, retirement age would be 60 years-On facts, members attaining superannuation age of 58 years before 31.3.1999, committee of High Court finding that officer not possessing sufficient potentiality for extension of E service-Compulsory retirement order with effect from 31.3.1999- Sustainability-Held: Retirement action illegal in view of rule 56 amended by notification dated 27.6.1998-Extension of superannuation age would not arise and also review ofperformance on attaining age of 58 years-High Court could not have initiated a proceeding, prior thereto under Rule 56 as amended by notification dated 28.12.1998 as the orders affecting substantive F right could be made under such law only after it comes into force and not in anticipation thereof-However, on basis of annual confidential reports not a fit case where this court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction- Further the continuation in service of persons of doubtful integrity not desirable-Therefore, retirement not considered prima facie and per se as punishment and they do not lose any part of their benefit earned during G service-High Court and State Government directed to pay all retiral benefits-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 235, 226, 32 and 142. In All India Judges' Association's case, while maintaining that the normal age of superannuation of the judicial officers would be 60 years, it H was directed that a committee appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court 674 J ~ - CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJAS THAN 675 would review the records of the members to find out their potentiality before A they attain the age of 58 years and those not found suitable, would be made to compulsorily retire at 58. Thereafter, the statutory rule governing the age of superannuation were made. Rule 53 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, provided for pre retirement assessment after completion of25 years of qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years, whichever is B earlier. Rule 56A of the Rajasthan Service Rules amended by notification dated 20.2.1995 provided that the retirement age of judicial officers having potential for continued useful purpose would be to 60 years, while for others it was 58 years. By notification dated 27.6.1998, retirement age was raised to 60 years for all government servants. Further by amendment to Rule 56 by notification dated 28.12.1998 effective from 31.3.1999 retirement age was reduced to 58 C years with a proviso that all government servants crossing 58 years would be retired on 31.3.1999, subject to the exception that for the judicial officers considered to have the potential for continued useful purpose by the High Court, the retirement age would be 60 years while for others it would be 58 years. Appellants are the members of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. Appellant C was to attain age of 58 years on 12.3.1999, Bon 19.9.1998 and Mon 4.1.1999. Committee of three Judges considered the case of several officers including appellants for giving them benefit of extension up to the D age of 60 years. Committee found that the appellants did not possess sufficient E potentiality and utility so as to give them the benefit of extension of service up to the age of 60 years. Full Court approved the same. Appellants were retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.3.1999. Appellants challenged the retirement order and the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeals. Appellants contended that they were entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years, which right was vested in them under Rule 56 amended by notification dated 27.6.1998; that the said rule did not prov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.