RAMESH CHANDRA ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the Order Dated 11.05.2000 (Annex. -1) by which the Petitioner had not been given extension till attaining the age of 60 years and has been retired at the age of 58 years.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner joined the Orissa Judicial Service, Class II on 14.1.1981 being selected by the Orissa Public Service Commission in emergency recruitment and appointed as temporary Munsif. Consequently his service was confirmed vide notification dated 18.06.1986. The Petitioner stood promoted in the year 1993 to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and vide impugned Order Dated 28.01.2000 he has not been granted further extension and being retired at the age of 58. Hence this Writ Petition.

(3.) ON the other hand Mr. Khuntia, Learned Addl. Government Advocate, has submitted that age of retirement of the Judicial Officers at the relevant time was 58 years. In special circumstances, where the officer was worth retaining and had a very good service record and was found to be efficient, could be given further extension of two years. The Petitioner has been retired on attaining the age of 58 years in view of the provision of Rule 71 (a -1) of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter called 'the Code'). The issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 26th June, 2000 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 376 of 2000, filed by the Petitioner himself, and as the issue has already been decided by the Apex Court the question of his continuance up to 60 years as a matter of right does not arise. Principles of natural justice are not attracted herein. In case some persons had wrongly been given extension, it cannot be a ground of extending the age of superannuation to the Petitioner also as Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage for negative equality. The petition is liable to be dismissed.