HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR versus SARNAM SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 15-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
J 
THROUGH REGISTRAR 
v. 
SARNAM SINGH AND ANR. 
B 
DECEMBER 15, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
U.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992 
Rules 2 and 4/Constitution of India: Article 309-Directions of Supreme 
Court to raise the retirement age of Subordinate Judicial Officers to 60 years 
from 58 years-State Governments directed to take appropriate steps before 
December, 1992-In the meanwhile extension of the age of superannuation 
D made subject to scrutiny by an Inspecting Judge of the respective High 
Court-State of UP framed Rules in October, 1992 extending the age of 
superannuation-Also provided for an overriding effect on the Fundamental 
Rules-Respondent compulsorily retired at the age of 58 on the basis of an 
adverse remark by the Inspecting Judge-Writ Petition challenging the said 
• . 
order allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Directions of Supreme 
,.
1 E . Court for scrutiny of the service record of the Subordinate Judicial Officers 
was of a transitory character-It yielded place to the new Rules of 1992 in 
the State of UP-It no longer remained incumbent upon the High Court to 
the resort to the procedure of scrutiny of service record-Respondent had a 
right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years-Order of compulsory 
retirement erroneous. 
F 
Rules of Court, I 952 (Allahabad High Court) Constitution of India: 
Chapter III/Article 235-Rules for Inspection of the Subordinate Judicial 
Officers-Original service record of the Respondent revealed no adverse 
remark-Inspection by the Inspecting Judge when lawyers were on strike 
and an adverse entry made-Held-High Court justified in holding that the 
G impugned adverse entry was unjustified, arbitrary and based on non-existent 
facts and hence liable to be quashed 
H 
Adverse entry-Recording of-Giving of an opportunity before making 
such entry-Not required 
In pursuance of the directions made by this Court in All India Jugdes' 
344 
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADv. SARNAMSINGH 
345 
Association, case (1992] 1 sec 119, the age of superannuation of all the A 
Subordinate Judicial Officers was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. The 
Court also fixed a time limit within which the State Governments had to take 
appropriate steps. On review of the said judgment, the enhancement in the 
retirement age of the Subordinate Judicial Officers was made subject to the 
determination by the High Court as to whether they were fit to be allowed 
an extension or not. This scrutiny was to be held in respect of Judicial B 
Officers who were about to attain the age of 58 years. This was a temporary 
measure to be adopted till the time the State Governments were to take 
appropriate action. The State of U.P., in pursuance of the above directions, 
framed Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) 
Rules, 1992 which raised the retirement age of Subordinate Judicial Officers C 
to 60 years. The respondent was compulsorily retired from service principally 
on account of the adverse remark given by the then Inspecting Judge made 
after a surprise check followed by an annual check. The writ petition filed 
by the respondent was allowed by the High Court on the judicial side on the 
ground that the order of compulsory retirement passed on the recommendation 
of the High Court was not based on any material and was, therefore, erroneous. D 
Hence the present appeal. 
The respondent contended that as the Retirement Rules framed by the 
State of U.P. raised the retirement age of the Subordinate Judicial Officers 
from 58 to 60 years and had overriding effect on Fundamental Rule 56, the E 
respondent had a right to continue in service till the age of 60 and the rule 
of scrutiny would not be applicable. The appellant contended that irrespective 
of the retirement age being raised scrutiny was still compulsory and the 
direction of this Court has to be read as supplemental to the Rules already 
framed. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. The procedure indicated by this Court in All India Judges' 
Association's case, [1992) l SCC 119, for evaluating the work, performance 
F 
and conduct of Judicial Officers, before allowing them to continue in service G 
upto the age of 60 years was evolved as a temporary measure and was not 
to be adopted as a permanent feature. The choice was left to the Appointing 
Authority. If the Appointing Authority itself has made nece

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