S.D. SINGH versus JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, THROUGH R.G. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 07-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
· S.D. SINGH ' 
! 
' 
'. 
v. 
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, THROUGH R.G. AND ORS. 
·, • t 
DECEMBER 7;2005 
B 
[MRS. RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN,.JJ,]. 
• 
j: 
Service Law: 
.. 
Judicial service-J1Jdicial Officer in State of Jharkhand-
C Superannuation-Benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 
years-Not given to the petitioner-Held, the High Court of Jharkhand did 
not frame any rules in terms of the directions given by this Court in the 
second All India Judges Association* case-The decision in the third All 
India Judges Association case** did not interfere with or modify the directions 
D given in 1993-lt would follow that the directions as formulated in 1993 in 
the second All India Judges Association case would continue to prevail as 
far as the Jharkhand High Court was concerned-The High Court, therefore, 
was required to consider the writ petitioner's case and after asking for his 
consent when he neared the age of 58 years to continue in service, take a 
decision whether to continue him in such service on the basis of his service 
E record-on facts An Evaluation Committee was sei up by the High Court-
The Committee considered the service record of the petitioner and 
recommended that he should not be continued in service beyond the age of 
58 years-The matter was placed before the Full Court which approved the 
recommendations of the Evaluation Committee-Writ Petition dismissed 
F 
*All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288, 
relied on. 
All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1992( I SCC 127; Syed 
TA. Naqshbandhi v. State of J & K, (2003) 9 SCC 592 and Rajat Burman Rai 
G v. State of West Bengal, [1999) 4 SCC 235, relied on. 
H 
**All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 247 
and High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Sarnam Singh, (2000) 2 SCC 
339, referred to. 
562 
S.D. SINGH v. JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. THROUGH R.G. 
563 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 393 of 2003. A 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
Anurag Kumar, Sudama Ojha and Dr. Maya Rao for the Petitioner. 
Ashok Mathur for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
The question is whether the petitioner could have been asked to retire 
at the age of 58 years and his service not extended to the age of 60 years. 
B 
The petitioner was an Additional District Judge. In 2003 he was served with C 
an order dated 14th May, 2003 stating that the Court having assessed and 
evaluated the petitioner's services . had taken a decision not to allow the 
petitioner the benefit of enhncement of the retirement age from 58 to 60 
years. Consequently, the petitioner would have to retire on completion of the 
age of 58 years on superannuation on 3 lst December, 2003. 
The order has ben impugned under Article 32 of the Constitution of 
India on the ground that the decision relied upon in the impugned order, 
namely, All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, reported in [1993) 
D 
4 SCC 288 did not apply to the petitioner's case. It is also submi.tted that the 
grounds for not extending the petitioner's services as disclosed in the counter E 
affidavits filed by the respondents in answer to the writ petition, were 
unsustainable in fact and in law. 
In All India Judges Association v. Union of India, [1992) 1 SCC 127 this 
Court had, on an application by the Judges Association under Article 32 of 
the Constitution inter alia directed that appropriate: rules should be framed F , 
or the extant ruled must be amended in all the States and the Union Territories 
in respect of judicial services so as to fix the age of retirement at 60 years 
with effect from December 31, 1992. This and other directions were reconsidered 
by this Court in 1993 on an application for review filed by the Union of India 
and various States in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, [ 1993] 
4 SCC 288 (referred to as the second All India Judges Association Case). G 
While disposing of the review application, it was stated that "the benefit of 
the increase of the retirement age to 60 years, shall not be available automatically 
to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence 
of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit will be available 
to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have potential H 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A for continued useful service. It is not intended
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.