GOVIND LAXMANRAO EDKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of compulsory retirement dated 3.11.2004 passed under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short "Pension Rules") on the recommendations of the High Court on its administrative side.

(2.) The Petitioner had entered the judicial service in terms of his first appointment as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class in June, 1980 and was promoted as a Civil Judge, Senior Division in the year 1989. He was further promoted as an Additional District & Sessions Judge in June, 1994. After having worked for about nine years in the Mofussil Judiciary as an Additional District and Sessions Judge the Petitioner was posted as a Judge in the City Civil & Sessions Court at Mumbai, and while he was holding the said post, was compulsorily retired by the impugned order passed by the State Government.

(3.) As per the Petitioner, his disposal record on becoming the Additional District Judge was satisfactory in the year 1994, inadequate in the year 1995 & 1996 and thereafter till August, 2000 it was either satisfactory or noteworthy. He submits that his disposal record in April, 2001 was deemed to be inadequate, in August 2001 it was inadequate, in December 2001 it was satisfactory, in April 2002 it was again inadequate. He also claims that there was nothing adverse ever recorded regarding his character, integrity or general standing as a judicial officer and at no point of time any adverse remarks were communicated to him. He claims that his entire service record was clean and he always discharged his duty diligently and honestly. He contends that the order of compulsory retirement is bad in law and there was no material before the High Court on its administrative side to recommend his compulsory retirement under Rule 10 (4) (a) (i) of the Pension Rules. He also contends that if the power of compulsory retirement is invoked in public interest there should be some material available on record so as to come to the conclusion or form an opinion that it is in the public interest to retire the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore claims that if the entire service record is taken into consideration, the order of compulsory retirement will not find support.