LexRAJA T BARAN ROY ETC. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJA T BARAN ROY ETC. v. STATE OF WEST .. BENGAL AND ORS. APRIL 13, 1999 B [S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] Service Law : Judicial Officers-Members of Higher Judicial Service-Service c conditions-Retirement age-Jn 1992 Supreme Court directing the Central and State Governments to raise the age of retirement to 60 years-In 1993 case putting a rider that benefit of raised retirement age be given to only those, who in the opinion of the respective High Courts had a potential for continued useful service-Members of State Higher Judicial Service equated D at par with !AS in respect of their service conditions by way of State GO dated 20.06.1992-Central Government raised the age of retire'!'lent to 60 years to the !AS vide its OM dated 13. 5.1998-State Government also raising the age of retirement of the members of the Higher Judicial Service to 60 years vide its GO dated 15. 5.1998-Held, State cannot resort to compulsory retirement' at the age of 58 years after raising the retirement age to 60 years E by issuing GO dated 15. 5.1998-Administrative Law-Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel-Constitution of India, Articles 312, 233 and 234. Compulsory retirement-Judicial review-Grounds for-Material particular and non application of mind-State Government compulsorily F retired members of the State Higher Judicial Service under the judgment of - this Court in 1993-Retirement sought to be justified under the powers vested in the State under Rule 75(aa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part ! I-No indication in the impugned orders of retirement that any aspect of : public interest or ingredients of rule 75(aa) were taken into consideration while issuing the impugned orders-Held, the impugned orders were bad on G account of non-application of mind and for want of material particulars , . . ' mandatory for invoking rule 75(aa)-Administrative Law-Administrative '-"· ,, action-Application of mind-Judicial review. J In 1992, this Court directed all State and Central Governments to make necessary amendments in the Rules to enhance the retirement age of H all judicial officers to 60 years. Instead of complying with the direction of 618 R.B. ROY v. ST ATE 619 this Court, some of the State Governments and the Union of India filed a A review petition which was disposed of by this Court in 1993 holding that the benefit was available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Court had a potential for continued useful service. However, an emphasis was supplied in the 1993 case that the direction issued were mere aids and incidental and supplemental to the main direction and intended as a transitional B measure till a comprehensive national policy was evolved. Members of State Higher Judicial Service were equated at par with IAS in respect of their service conditions by way of state GO dated 20.06.1992. Central Government raised the age of retirement to 60 years for the IAS vide its OM dated 13.5.1998. State Government also raised the age of retirement of the mem hers of the Higher Judicial Service to 60 years vide State GO dated 15.5.1998. C The petitioners, members of the West Bengal Higher Judicial services, were governed by the West Bengal Service Rules, Put I. The petitioners were prematurely retired from the services by the impugned orders passed by the Governor of the State, and the same was challenged by way of the present writ petition before this Court. D · It was contended by the petitioners that by virtue of Government Order dated 20.6.1992, the members of Higher Judicial Service were treated at par with the members of the Indian Administrative Service in all matters and th~refore when the Central Government vide its OM dated 13.5.1998 intimated to,the State Government that the retirement age of the Central Government E employees had been raised to 60 years, the petitioners automatically became entitled to be retired at the age of 60. It was contended by the respondent that in 1992 this Court had directed the raising of retirement age of judicial officers to 63 years with a rider in 1993 that the benefit of raised retirement age should not be available p automatically to all judicial officers, but to those who in the opinion of the respective High Courts had the potential for continued useful service. It was further contended that rule 75(aa) of West Bengal Service Rules Part I gave the power to the State Government to retire t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.