STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus LALSARAM

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 23-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
LALSARAM 
FEBRUARY 23, 2001 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
U.P. Fundamental Rules: Rules 56(c) and 56(2). 
C 
Compulsory retirement-Government servant promoted as Deputy Col-
lector on the basis of seniority only-Subsequently, the said Government serv-
ant tvas compulsorily retired in public interest on the basis of adverse entries 
in his service record prior to promotion-Validity of-Held: Adverse remarks 
lose their sting if pro1notion is made on merits-But if promotion is made on 
D 
seniority only adverse remarks do not lose their sting-Rules provide an 
absolute right to compulsorily retire a Government servant-Compulsory re-
tirement being in public interest, no inteiference is called for-Fundamental 
Rules, R.56. 
The respondent was appointed as a direct recruit Naib Tehsildar and 
E 
was promoted as Deputy Collector on the basis of seniority only. Subse· 
quently, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 
56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules on the basis of adverse entries in his 
service records prior to his promotion. However, the High Court quashed 
the order of compulsory retirement. Hence this appeal. 
F 
G 
H 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the adverse 
remarks lost their sting upon promotion of the respondent and could not, 
therefore, from a basis for the compulsory retirement of the respondent. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In the event of there being a promotion by the Depart· 
mental Promotion committee upon assessment of the service career and 
annual confidential reports,_ the adverse entries lose their sting • in the 
event, however, the promotion is offered only on the ground of seniority 
without any assessment of the entire career situation, question of adverse 
entries losing their sting does not and cannot arise. In the contextual facts 
108 
+ 
-~ 
+ 
STATE v. LALSA RAM 
109 
if it was promotion by way of selection and not by seniority, no exception 
A 
_,, 
could be taken therefor but the facts in the present context depict other· 
i 
wise since the respondent was promoted by seniority only. [114·F·G] 
BaikunthaNath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, [1992) 
2 sec 299, followed. 
B 
State of Punjab v. Gunlas Singh, [1998) 4 SCC 92; Prabodh Sagar v. 
Punjab State Electricity Board, [2000) 5 SCC 630; I.K. Mishra v. Union of 
India, [1997) 6 SCC 228 and Pusts and Telegraphs Board v. C.S.N. Munhy, 
[1992) 2 sec 317, relied on. 
2. Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules read with sub-rule (2) c 
provides an authority to the Government with an absolute right to retire 
an employee on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years. The option 
for the Government servant to voluntarily retire, however, has been attrib-
uted to the concerned employee at any time after attaining the age of 45 
years or after he has completed the qualifying service of 20 years. The 
D 
fundamental Rules thus confer a right absolute to retire an employee on the 
happening of certain event namely the latter attaining 50 years of age - the 
right being absolute. [115-E-F) 
--; 
3. The Appointing Authority upon consideration of the entire service 
record as required under the Rules and having formed its opinion that the 
E 
'f 
compulsory retirement of the respondent being in public interest issued the 
order and in the wake of the aforesaid, question of any interference of this 
Court does not and cannot arise. Interference in these matters by the 
courts in exercise of its jurisdiction under the constitutional mandate is 
very restricted and the courts shall have to tread on the issue with utmost 
F 
care and caution by reason of very limited scope of interference. [116-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4040of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15 .3.99 of the Allahabad High Court 
in C.M.WP. No. 20567 of 1998. 
G 
Y.P. Singh, C. Siddharth, Mukesh K. Sharma and Ajay K. Agrawal for 
the Appellants. 
_.. 
Shashindra Tripathi and Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the Respond-
ent. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
no 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BANERJEE, J. The challenge in this appeal, by the grant of special 
leave, is to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court allowing a writ petition 
upon having an order of compulsory retirement dated 18th May 1998, set 
aside and quashed. 
Before adverting to the contentions raised in the

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