V.JAYAKUMAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 13A of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, while he was working as Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I Pathanamthitta. The order of the High Court of Kerala is produced at Ext.P1 dated 13.07.2010 and he had completed the age of 50 years as on 21.04.2010. The compulsory retirement was on an evaluation and assessment of his service records at the age of 50 as has been stipulated in the aforementioned Rule. The order indicates that there was a Committee of Judges headed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the High Court, who on the basis of the records of service assessed his performance and evaluated the suitability for continuance and found him to be not entitled to be continued.

(2.) The learned Counsel had raised very many grounds most of which have been answered by a Division Bench in W.A No.1633/2013 and connected cases by judgment dated 16.01.2015 and our judgment in W.P(C) NO.33298/2015 dated 11.02.2020.

(3.) The challenge to the specific rule (R.13A) does not survive for reason of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9700-9701 of 2013 dated 21.11.2017 which upheld in pari materia provision in the State of Andra Pradesh. The rule hence has to be found to be intra-vires. The next ground, that the Shetty Commission Report though generally accepted, the recommendation for consideration of suitability to continue,after the age of 50, 55 and 58 had not been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges Association (3) Vs. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247, has also been rejected. All India Judges Association(2) v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 28, itself had found that the benefit of enhanced retirement age of 60 was not available automatically and that 'It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility' (sic).