MEGHRAJ URKUDAJI TEMPLE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1066 · Decided: 10-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MEGHRAJ URKUDAJI TEMPLE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AUGUST I 0, 1988 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL, M. SRINIVASAN AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 : Rule 10(4)(a)(i). 
c 
Compulsory Retirement-Procedure of-Employee attaining prescribed 
age or completing prescribed length of service-Review of-Circular dated 
1-9-1983 provided for review on the employee attaining the age of 50155 
years-Employee's case not reviewed on his attaining the age of 50 years-
But his case reviewed on his crossing the age of 50 years and was compulsorily 
D retired-Permissibility of-Held, In view of clear instruction in Circular 
dated 12.5.1986, review was permissible even after employee crossed the age 
of 50 years-Employee's contention that the review on his crossing the age 
of 50 years is deemed to be a second review, rejected-Hence, employee's 
compulsory retirement, upheld 
E 
Compulsory Retirement-Grounds for-Prescribed standard of 
performance-Employee not attaining-Review of-Employee attained age 
of 50 years on 11-5-1985-His case was not reviewed according to Circular 
dated 1-9-1983 in which minimum standard of performance was not below 
average"-But his case was reviewed on 9.6.1987 according to a subsequent 
F Circular dated 12. 5. 1986 in which the minimum standard of performance 
was increased to "not below good"-As the employee did not fulfil this 
).: 
standard he was compulsorily retired validity of-Held: The Circular which 
is in force at the time an employee's case is considered is applicable and not 
the Circular which was in force when his case should have been considered-
G Hence, compulsory retirement of employee, valid-Contention of employee 
that his case should have been considered according to the 1983 Circular, 
rejected. 
Compulsory Retirement-Employee promoted before compulsory 
retirement-Adverse material-Effect of-On compulsory retirement-Held: 
H Question not decided as the employee could not establish that he was 
1066 
MEGHRAJ URKUDAJI TEMPLE v. STATE 
1067 
promoted before compulsory retirement. 
A 
The respondent-State issued a Circular dated 1-10-83 under Rule 
10(4)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 which 
provided review of the performance of Government employees at the age of 
50-55 years or after completing the prescribed length of service and to order 
compulsory retirement of those Government employees who did not fulfil the B 
minimum standard of performance "not below average". Subsequently, a 
Circular dated 12-5-1986 was issued in which the minimum standard of 
performance was increased to "not below good." 
The Appellant who was an Executive Engineer attained the age of 50 
years on ll-5-1985. But the appellant's case was not reviewed in accordance 
with the 1983 Circular. Instead the appellant's case was reviewed on 9-6-
1987 in accordance with the Circular dated 12-5-1986. As the appellant did 
c 
not fulfil the minimum standard "not below good" he was compulsorily 
retired from service. The appellant's petition before the State Administrative 
Tribunal Challenging his compulsory retirement was dismissed. Hence this D 
appeal. 
"'~ 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the circular dated 12· 
5-1986 was not applicable to the appellant and instead Circular dated 1-10-
1983 was applicable; that since the appellant's case was not considered 
according to the 1983 Circular subsequent review under the 1986 Circular E 
constituted a second review which was barred by the 1983 Circular; that had 
the appellant's case been considered according to the 1983 Circular he 
would have been required to fulfil the standard of"not below average" only; 
and that even that even ifthe 1986 Circular was applicable to the appellant, 
he having been promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent Engineer any F 
-"' 
adverse material would be deemed to have been wiped off. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is nothing in the circular dated 1-10-1983 to be 
read as deemed review in case any officer's case is not considered before he G 
crosses the age of 50 years. In the case of the appellant no review was ever 
made earlier so as to constitute the review made on 9-6-1987 as the second 
review. In fact the review made on 9-6-1987 in accordance with the Circular 
dated 12-5-1986 was the first review exercised by the respondent-State in 
respect of the appellant's case. It is clear from the Circular dated 12-5-1986 
tha

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