J D SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a judicial officer of the State of Madhya Pradesh, who would have ordinarily retired on 31/01/1984 on attaining 58 years of age. He was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate in the erstwhile State of Bhopal in 1953. On reorganisation of States on 1/11/1956, he became a member of the Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was promoted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on January 1974 and was confirmed in that post with effect from 25/11/1974. consequent upon the decision of the State Government to reorganise the Higher Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh in accordance with the advice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 101 posts of the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges came to be abolished and the incumbents of those posts were to be absorbed as District and Sessions Judges as per Government Memorandum dated 24/02/1981. On the issue of the said Memorandum, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh decided to screen the officers in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges for the purpose of making recommendation to the State Government about the promotion of, selected officers to the cadre of District and Sessions Judges. For this purpose, Full Court Meetings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were held on February 27 and 28, 1981 and 1/03/1981. THE case of the appellant was also considered in that connection. It is stated that at these meetings, the High Court first resolved to scrutinise the cases of all the judicial officers who were to attain the age of 55 years in the year, 1981. In the course of such scrutiny the High Court decided on 27/02/1981 to retire the appellant compulsorily on his attaining the age of 55 years under Rule 56 (3) of the Fundamental Rules. On 1/03/1981 it decided not to recommend him for promotion to the cadre of District and Sessions Judges. Accordingly, the State Government was addressed by the High Court. to retire the appellant compulsorily. THE appellant thereafter continued 'as an Additional District and Sessions Judge until lie was served with the order of compulsory retirement dated 28/08/1981. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. THE petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 29/07/1982. This appeal is preferred by special leave against the judgment of the High Court.

(2.) CLAUSE (a) of the Fundamental Rule 56 (3) as amended in 1976 which governs the case of the appellant reads thus :

(3.) IN para 10 of the counter affidavit of Shri A. K. Pandey, Additional Registrar of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh filed before this Court, it is stated as follows :