CHAKRADHAR MAHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a member of the ministerial staff of the Orissa High Court against the order of the Chief Justice dated 29 -10 -52 directing that he shall retire from service with effect from the forenoon of 4 -2 -53. Several consequential reliefs are also claimed in the petition.

(2.) THE material facts are as follows: The Petitioner joined as an assistant in the Finance Department of the old Bihar and Orissa Secretariat at Patna on 28 -9 -1919 and was transferred as a Translator of the Cuttack Circuit Court of the Patna High Court on 20 -10 -1925. He continued to serve in that capacity till 25 -7 -1948 and after the creation of the Orissa High Court he was transferred to that Court as a Translator on 26 -7 -1948. He was appointed as Superintendent of the Judicial Department of the High Court on 15 -5 -1949. He completed his fifty -fifth year on 3 -2 -51. Under Rule 71(b) of the Orissa Service Code a ministerial officer may be required to retire at the age of fifty -five years; but he should ordinarily be retained in service if he continues efficient up to the age of sixty years. The Government of Orissa in Finance Department letter No. 14215 (50) F (Annexure N) dated the 25th September, 1951 gave detailed instructions as to how the test of efficiency required by the said Pule should be applied whenever it was desired to give extension of service beyond the fifty -fifth year to a ministerial officer. According to those instructions an annual review of the work of the officer concerned should be made and extension of service granted for one year at a time if the competent authority was satisfied that the officer continued to maintain the same efficiency as before. On 31 -7 -51 (Annexure D) the Chief Justice was pleased to direct extension of service for the Petitioner for a period of one year with effect from 3 -2 -51. Again, on 22 -1 -52 a further extension of service for a period of one year was granted till the 3rd February 1953. Thus he was granted two years extension of service.

(3.) THE Petitioner's main contention was that this order was invalid inasmuch as under Rule 71(b) of the Orissa Service Code the Petitioner was entitled to remain in service till the completion of his 60th year if he continued to remain efficient and that he could be compulsorily retired only if after due proceedings it was held that he did not continue to be efficient. It was further contended that Rule 1(2) of Section I of the new Pension Rules on which the Chief Justice's order was based could not take away the substantial right conferred on the Petitioner by Rule 71(b) of the Orissa Service Code.