BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is a member of Bihar Superior Judicial Service and posted as District and Session Judge, Giridih, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Bihar to frame rules for enhancement of age of superannuation of the judicial officers of the State as per directions of the Supreme Court issued in the case of All India Judges' Association case', and also for a writ or direction quashing the communication contained in the letter dated 17th May, 2000 of the Registrar General of the Patna High Court informing the petitioner that having assessed and evaluated the services of the petitioner in the light of the decision of this court in All India Judges'association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2, the High Court has been pleased to decide not to allow him the benefit of enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years and that the petitioner shall cease to be a member of the judicial service of the State on completion of the age of 58 years in October, 2000.

(2.) The facts are jejune. Bishwanath Prasad Singh, the petitioner, was born on 10th October, 1942. He entered Bihar Administrative Service (Judicial Branch) on 4.4.1974 as a Munsif. He was promoted as Assistant Subordinate Judge in April, 1985. In May, 1987, he was promoted in Bihar Superior Judicial Service and confirmed on 5.3.1998 w. e. f. 1.9.1991. On 17.2.2000, selection grade was released to the petitioner w. e. f. 1.8.1997. On 17.5.2000 the impugned communication, as abovesaid, was issued by the High Court of Patna through its Registrar General.

(3.) The impugned communication of the High Court has been challenged by the petitioner mainly on three grounds: firstly, that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the retirement age of judicial officers stood increased to 60 years and before attaining such age of retirement, the petitioner could not have been made to retire at the age of 58 years except by following the procedure applicable to compulsory retirement; secondly, that the petitioner holds a civil post under the State of Bihar. The order of retirement can be passed only by the Governor of Bihar; the jurisdiction of the High Court being only advisory. As the State of Bihar/governor of Bihar has not passed any order of retirement, the petitioner cannot be made to retire by the High Court acting on its own; thirdly, that the impugned order is arbitrary based on no material and hence is vitiated. We will deal with each of the pleas so raised seriatim.