SUSHREE SUMITRA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who was. a member of Subordinate Judicial Service and posted as Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, prayed for quashing the order contained in letter no. 19542 dated 6/7.12.1999 whereby she was not allowed the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years rather to retire at the age of 58 years, Annexure -5, the order contained in letter no. 2458 dated 19.2.2000 whereby her representation dated 4.1.2000 to allow her benefit to retire at the age of 60 years has been rejected, Annexure -7, and also the adverse remarks recorded on 11.10.1999 by the Inspecting Judge communicated to her vide letter dated 6.12.1999, Annexure -3.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the communication, Annexure -5 not allowing the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years on the ground; firstly, that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the retirement age of Judicial Officer stood increased to 60 years, before attaining the age of 60 years the petitioner cannot be made to retire at the age of 58 years except by following procedure for compulsory retirement, the order, Annexure -5, in reality is a camouflage for an order of punishment as dismissal/compulsory retirement without complying with the requirement of natural justice and is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; secondly, that the petititoner has been made to retire at the age of 58 years without considering the entire service records of the petitioner and only on the basis of adverse remarks recorded by the Inspecting Judge, An -nexure -3, though there was no occasion to record such adverse remarks and as such the impugned order, Annexure -5, is arbitrary based on no material hence is vitiated.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 annexing the entire confidential remarks recorded by the District Judges and the Inspecting Judges including enquiry report dated