GIAN SINGH MANN versus THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 22-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

507 
A 
GIAN SINGH MANN 
v. 
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANR. 
B 
August 22, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. PATHAK, JJ.) 
Promotion-Belated claim after eleven years without valid explanation for 
delay cannot be entertained-Article 32 of the Constitution-Punjab Civil Se;r-
vice (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 do apply to the judicial service-Words 
.and Phrases "public interesf'-Whether the expression is vague in the context 
of Premature Re'tirement Rules of 1965-Withdrawal of judicial work as a 
policy decision of the High Court cannot be challenged-The concept of pre-
.mature retirement does not fall within the scope of Article 311. 
The petitioner after holding a number of minor posts in the Punjab Gov-
·ernment, was appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) and 
subsequently in April 1965 to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). From 
·the post of Senior Subordinate-I udge he was reverted as 
Subordinate-Judge. 
Later, on 4th November, 1978, the High Court ordered withdrawal of all 
judicial work from the petitioner and on 8th November, 1978 a Judicial Officer 
was posted in his place. Subsequently he was prematurely retired with effect 
from 30th December, 1978 on which date_ he· completed 25 years qualifying 
:service for the purposes of Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 
1975. 
The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Con-
·stitution in the Supreme Court for the quashing of the orders dated 4th Nov-
·ember, 1978 and 8th November, 1978, for his reappointment as Senior Sub-
-ordinate-Judge and, thereafter, his promotion to the Selection Grade post of 
the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from !st November, 1966 
and his prdmotion to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect from !st 
·November, 1967. He also claimed an injunction against his premature retire-
.men! from service, which relief was refused. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court. 
HELD: (1) Inordinate delay without valid explanation therefor to the 
,claim for promotion itself is a valid ground for refusal of relief to a petitioner. 
Successive repre<;entations made by the petitioner during the period can hardly 
justify the delay. [509 F] 
(2) The High Court was justified, as borne out by the records, not promo-
ting the petitioner to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. The view 
-of the High Court was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. [510 A-BJ 
(3) :fhe Punjab Civil Service (Premature, Retirement) Rules, 1975 
are 
applicable to judicial officers as well. These rules were finalised after consul-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
tation with the High Court and therefore, must be regarded as complying with 
H 
Article 234 of the Constitution. Further, there is nothing in the Punjab Civil 
Service (Judicial Branch) which excludes the operation of the Retirement Rules. 
[510 E] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 
(4) As a policy decision was taken by the High Court that all the work 
pending in the court of the Judicial Officers, in respect of whom a recommen-
dation for premature retirement had been made to the Governor, should be· 
withdrawn immediately pending a decision by the Government on such recom-
mendation, it cannot be said that the withdrawal of judicial powers in the· 
case of the petitioner was wrong. 
Even his premature retirement had been 
properly recommended as a policy matter under the Premature Retirement: 
Rules. [510 G-H]1 
(5) The expression "public interest" in the context of premature retire-· 
ment has a well settled meaning. It refers to cases where the interest of public· 
administration requires the retirement of a Government servant, who with the 
passage of years, has prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency, 
competence and utility called for by the Government service to which he· 
belongs. 
No stigma or· implication of misbehaviour is intended and punish-
ment is not the objective. [511 A-BJ 
(6) There is no discrimination or violation of Articles 14, 16, 17 rnd 46 
of the Constitution in view of the fact, as borne out by the reccrds, that na· 
other judicit.l officer whose record of service was inferior 
o~. equivalent to 
that of the petitioner had not been prematurely retired. [Sil F, DJ 
(7) The concept of premature retirement which has found expression i~ 
the Punjab Civil Service (Premature 
Retirement) Rules, 1975, does not fall· 
within the scope of Article 311.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.