Petitioner challenged his relief from judicial service at age 58, relying on prior extension approval. The Court held the Full Court has discretion to assess utility and authority cannot interfere in the absence of procedural violation or material basis for the decision.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 10.07.2019
Pronounced on : 07-08-2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Writ Petition No. 9321 of 2019
and
W.M.P. No. 9882 of 2019
S. Natarajan .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Chennai - 600 104
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts-1A) Department
Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009
(R2 impleaded as per order dated 26.04.2019
made in WMP No. 12449 of 2019 in WP No.
9321 of 2019) by MVJ & SKRJ ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order in R.O.C. No. 03/2018-Con.B.2.(ACR) dated 10.12.2018 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to retain the petitioner in service upto the age of 60 years.
For Petitioner : Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Advocate for Mr. T.K. Saravanan For Respondents : Mr. K. Elango for R1
Mr. V. Shanmuga Sundar Special Government Pleader for R2
ORDER
R. SUBBIAH, J
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the proceedings dated 10.12.2018 of the first respondent, wherein and whereby, he was relieved from the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service with effect from 10.12.2018 A.N. and to consequently direct the respondents to retain his service upto the age of 60 years.
Court of this Court for approval. Though the matter was placed before the Full Court only for a mere approval of the decision taken by the Administrative Committee, the Full Court had taken a decision to relieve the petitioner from judicial service and such a decision is not supported by any material. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, such a decision taken by the Full Court is arbitrary and unreasonable and consequently, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. The petitioner was permitted to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years by the Administrative Committee upon considering his unblemished service and pursuant to such a decision, the petitioner had rendered nearly eight months of service after completion of 58 years. Thus, the petitioner's legitimate expectation to continue in service until he attains the age of 60 years has been unreasonably denied and the non-extension of service of the petitioner, in the absence of any material, is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power by the administrative side of the High Court. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the Administrative side of this Court ought to have evaluated the continued utility of the petitioner and taken a decision before the petitioner attains the age of 58 years and not thereafter. In this context, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 1993 (4) Supreme Court Cases 288 wherein it was held that the evaluation exercise should be undertaken by the High Court before the attainment of 58 years of age. It was further held that such an assessment is for the purpose of finding out the suitability of the concerned officers for entitlement of the benefit of extension of service beyond 58 years of age. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, in the present case, having allowed the petitioner to continue his service for eight months beyond 58 years of age, the respondents ought not to have relieved the petitioner from continuing his service until he attains the age of 60 years. Further, it is submitted that in the above decision, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the enhancement of age of superannuation upto 60 years coupled with the provisions of compulsory retirement at 58 years has introduced a change in service condition. In para Nos. 31 and 32 of this Judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:"31. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service Rules applicable to the judicial officers. Those who will not be found fit and eligible by this standard
should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement. The exercise should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58 years even in cases where earlier the age of superannuation was less than 58 years. It is necessary to make it clear that this assessment is for the purpose of finding out the suitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of the benefit of the increased age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. It is in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement and the compulsory retirement at the earlier stage/s under the respective Service Rules.
this decision, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents, having permitted the petitioner to continue in service for about 8 months beyond 58 years of age, ought not to have relieved him from service before completion of the balance 16 months of service.
"56. (1) Retirement on superannuation:- (a) Every Government servant in the Superior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. He shall not be retained in service after that age except with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing but he shall not be retained after the age of sixty years except in very special circumstances:
Provided that this clause shall not apply to Government servants who are treated as in superior service for the purpose of these rules but as in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service for the purpose of pension. Such Government Servants as well as all basic servants shall retire on attaining the age of sixty years;
Provided further that on and from 1st January 1993, a District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Subordinate Judge or District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, who in the opinion of the High Court, Madras has potential for continued useful service
beyond the age of fifty-eight years, shall retire from service on attaining the age of sixty years. (G.O. Ms. No.365, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.IV) Department dated 4th October 1996 - with effect from 1st January 1993).
(2) Compulsory Retirement:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice at any time after he has attained the age of fifty years or fifty five years in the case of Basic Servants, as the case may be, or after he has completed thirty years of qualifying service."
appropriate authority is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, then the appropriate authority will have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice at any time after he has attained the age of fifty years or fifty five years in the case of Basic Servants, as the case may be, or after he has completed thirty years of qualifying service. Thus, (i) formation of opinion by the appropriate authority (ii) public interest and (iii) notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowance in lieu of such notice are essential ingredients contemplated under Rule 56 (2). If the case of the petitioner is to be covered under compulsory retirement, the order passed by the first respondent did not contain anything about the necessity of public interest and therefore it is not sustainable. Further, neither a three months' notice in writing nor three months' pay and allowance in lieu of such notice was given to him and therefore, the case of the petitioner will not fall under compulsory retirement also. In this case, since the petitioner was permitted to continue his service for eight months beyond the age of 58 years, there is a change in condition of service and therefore, thereafter, the petitioner can be relieved only by way of compulsory retirement, if there is public interest and he cannot thereafter be relieved otherwise.
years. The petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, assert that he is entitled to be retained in service and it is subject to the approval to be accorded by the Full Court of this Court.
"13. Neither the High Court nor this Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, could or would at any rate substitute themselves in the place of the Committee/Full Court of the High Court concerned, to make an independent re-assessment of the same, as if sitting on an appeal. On a careful consideration of the entire materials brought to our notice by learned counsel on either side, we are satisfied that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court forming their unanimous opinion is neither so arbitrary or capricious nor can be said to be so irrational as to shock the conscience of the Court to warrant or justify any interference. In
cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor should be allowed to be overblown out of proportion either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or asserted. In the very nature of things it would be difficult, nearing almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the Full Court, to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when the Court is convinced that some monstrous thing which ought not to have taken place has really happened and not merely because there could be another possible view or someone has some grievance about the exercise undertaken by the Committee/Full Court."
"309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State:Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State;
Provided that it shall be competent for the President of such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act.
subjected to judicial review.
records. In any event, such a decision taken by the Full Court cannot be re-appreciated by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The judicial review over such decision of the Full Court is very limited. Only when there is a procedural violation in the decision making process, this Court can interfere. In this case, the Administrative Committee of this Court decided to extend the service of the petitioner beyond 58 years subject to approval of the Full Court and thereafter, it was placed before the Full Court along with the service particulars of the petitioner. After discussion on the subject, the Full Court decided not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond 58 years. We do not find any procedural violation in the decision making process to discontinue the service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years. Hence, judicial review over such decision taken by the Full Court is legally impermissible and consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.
Copy TO
WP No. 9321 of 2019
NRL(CO)
GN(16/08/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Full Court of the High Court can refuse to extend the service of a judicial officer beyond age 58 despite an earlier order for extension.
Whether such refusal amounts to a violation of the change in service conditions mandated by Supreme Court precedents.
Whether the Full Court's decision to discontinue service is subject to judicial review under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
All India Judges Association and others vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶17
1993 (4) Supreme Court Cases 288
Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and othersReferred¶24
2001 (2) Supreme Court Cases 305
S.D. Singh vs. Jharkhand High Court, through Registrar General and othersRelied on¶41
(2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 737
Syed T.A. Naqshbandi vs. State of J & KReferred¶41
(2003) 9 SCC 592 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
S. Natarajan
Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras
State of Tamil Nadu
R. Subbiah
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
