JANAKI VALLAB JOSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered the Judicial Service of the State of Rajasthan in the year 1972. He was promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and then as Chief Judicial Magistrate. Later, he was appointed to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service by way of promotion under order dated August 30, 1988. The promotion was given to him on officiating basis under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969. By order dated May 19, 1990 Super-Time Scale was allowed to the petitioner in the RJS cadre with effect from August 13, 1987 and by order dated June 25, 1999 the petitioner was appointed substantively in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service under Annexure-1. The petitioner was served with order dated February 8, 2000 from the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, whereby His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan ordered for retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from July 31, 2000. A copy of the order dated February 8, 2000 has been placed on record marked Annexure-14.

(2.) Mr. Govind Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the non-extension of the superannuation age for the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside being unjust and arbitrary and being also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Mathur, the working of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory and there was nothing adverse on the basis of which promotion could be denied to him or any action adverse could be taken against him. He also invited our attention to the adverse remarks which were entered in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the years 1989, 1992, 1994 and 1995. It seems from Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 that the Reviewing Committee expunged the entries made in the A.C.Rs. in so far as the adverse remarks pertaining to the year 1989 and 1992 are concerned and treated the adverse remarks for the years 1994 and 1995 as 'advisory' so as not to be considered adverse to the petitioner. He further submits that the work of the petitioner was appreciated by the High Court under Annexure-6. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the communication received from the Registrar (Admn.) dated February 5, 1999 requesting him to convey his option before February 1, 1999 as to whether he is desirous to avail the benefit of enhanced superannuation age or not. The petitioner has also opted for availing the enhanced superannuation on February 5, 1999. Later, the petitioner was directed to send at least 3 judgments in Civil Original Cases, 2 judgments in criminal matters Trial, or Appellate, and 2 judgments in Civil Appeals by communication dated January 22, 1999; and, in response to the request, he remitted copies of the judgments as required. He also submitted his physical fitness certificate as directed and the petitioner was under the impression that enhancement in the age of superannuation has been recommended by respondent No. 2. However, he received the order dated February 8, 2000 ordering for retirement oflhe petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) Mr. Govind Mathur submits that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court every subordinate Judicial Officer is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years and non- extension of the age of superannuation beyond 58 years is a punishment as the criteria for non-extension of the age of superannuation is the same as is for compulsory retirement. According to Mr. Mathur, non-extension can be denied to an Officer whose retention in service is not in public interest and the entire service career of the petitioner is without any shadow of doubt and, therefore, the respondents have committed a serious error in not extending his services. It is further submitted that there is no just and valid reason to retire the petitioner on his attaining the age of 58 years.