UMESH CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the order dated 5.1.2002 (Annexure-10), issued under the signature of the Registrar General of the Patna High Court, and the consequential order dated 8.1.2002 (Annexure-10/1), issued under the signature of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, communicating the said order marked Annexure-10 to the Petitioner that he has not been given the benefit of extension of service from 58 years to 60 years of age. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have placed on record their counter affidavit. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The Petitioner joined the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service on 3.4.1975 as a Munsif Magistrate. He was confirmed in due course, and was promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge-1-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. He was thereafter placed under suspension and was subjected to a departmental proceeding. The enquiry report exonerated him of the charges which was accepted by the High Court, and he was warned to be careful in future. He was reinstated in service on the post of Subordinate Judge. The warning was, however, expunged by this Court.

(2.) While assailing the validity of the impugned action, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no material in the service record of the Petitioner which can be treated to be adverse and, therefore, there was no sound basis for the High Court to deny to him the benefit of extension of service. He submits in the same vein that the order of suspension, the departmental proceeding, and the subsequent show-cause notice had all ended in favour of the Petitioner. He relies on the following reported judgments:-

(3.) Mr. Piyush Lal, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has supported the impugned action. He submits that a case of extension of service beyond the prescribed age of superannuation has to be viewed in contradistinction to a case of compulsory retirement. He further submits that the entire service record of the Petitioner has to be considered in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India . Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 relies on the following reported judgments:-