RAMESH CHANDRA ACHARYA versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 26-06-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMESH CHANDRA ACHARYA 
II. 
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
JUNE 26, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) 
Serivce Law: 
Compulsory retirement-Of Judicial officers of the State-Under Rules 
C 7/(a) and (a-I) of the Orissa Service Code-Rule prescribing extended 
superannuation age would be given only to those who are found by High 
Court to have a potential for continued useful service-Other judicial officers 
to be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years-Held, such rule is not 
inconsistent with the decision rendered in All India Judges Association* 
D case-In order to get the benefit of extended superannuation age, criteria 
explained-Orissa Service Code, Rules 7(a), 7(a-/)-Object and validity 
of-Judiciary. 
Petitioner was appointed as temporary Munsif by the High Court in 1981 
and was confirmed in 1985. Petitioner was then promoted as a Civil Judge 
E (Senior Division) in 1993. In 1998, High Court conducted review of the 
petitioner as per Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and allowed him to 
remain in service upto the age of 58 years. In January 2000, Petitioner 
received copy of a confidential letter from the Registrar (Administration), 
High Court addressed to the Secretary, Law Department, State Government 
conveying the decision of the High Court that as per Rule 7l(a-l) of the Orissa 
F Service Code, that the petitioner should be retired on attaining the age of 58 
years. Petitioner made a representation in April 2000 to the High Court 
seeking reconsideration of his case on the ground that Supreme Court has 
enhanced the age of superannuation of judicial officers to 60 years by pointing 
out the decision in Rajat Baran Roy** case. 
G 
H 
There was no response. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notification 
dated 11.05.2000 from the Law Department of the Government notifying the 
Government's decision to retire him from the service on attaining the age of 
58 years. Hence this writ petition. 
It was contended by the petitioner that he had a clean record qua 
456 
.. 
R.C. ACHARY Av. REGISTRAR. HIGH COURT OF ORISSA 
457 
integrity and efficiency; that there was no adverse entry or remark ever made A 
in his confidential report; and that Rule 71 (a-1) was against the decision 
rendered in All India Judges Association •case. 
Dismissing the Petition, this Court 
HELD: I. There can be no right of an employee to continue in service B 
de-hors statutory or administrative rule pmcribing superannuation age and 
continuation in service could be only subject to the conditions provided. 
2.1. Rule 71(a-1) of the Orissa Service Code is not only in conformity 
with the decision of this Court in All India Judges Association case but also 
in conformity with the requirement of service jurisprudence. The purpose of C 
increasing the superannuation age for the judicial officers. was with an 
intention to raise the tone and morale of the judicial service to the society. A 
judicial office is required to discharge much more greater responsibility to 
the society. Hence, judicial officers must be fit in all respects for discharge 
of such onerous duties. 
*All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 1199211 SCC 119 and 
Al/ India Judges Association v. Union of India, 1199314 SCC 288, relied on. 
Professor Pannic: "Judges" referred to. 
2.2. Further Rule 71(a-1) does not straight-away extend the age of 
superannuation at the age of 58 years but only enables the High Court to 
retain in service a judicial officer belonging to the State Judicial Service up 
D 
E 
to the age of 60 years, if it is of the opinion that such judicial officer has the 
potential to continue in useful service. For finding out whether he has the 
potential, assessment is to be made on the basis of past record of service, F 
character rolls, quality of the judgements and other relevant matters, which 
may include overall assessment with regard to integrity, reputation and utility. 
**Rajat Baran Roy v. State of West Bengal, 119991 4 SCC 235, 
distinguished. 
G 
2.3. In the absence of a specific rule made by the State no judicial officer 
has a right as such to continue beyond the age of 58 years. It is only when the 
High Court, after reviewing all aspects of service including the past record 
of the officer concerned, specifically orders that in the interest of the judicial 
service of the State, it is necessary to retain the particular officer beyond the H 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A age lim

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