ANTHONY HANSDA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one of a series of cases referred to by the learned single Judge to the Division Bench for hearing and disposal having regard to the fact that the question regarding invocation of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code is involved.

(2.) IN the year 1975, the petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate under the erstwhile State of Bihar and was duly confirmed in service by the respondents No. 3 to 5. During his tenure of service, he was transferred from one place to another and was granted promotion as Sub -Judge on 30th October 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that while posted at Jamui as Munsif he incurred the wrath and displeasure of his colleagues which resulted in various letters being written to the Patna High Court with a view to adversely affect the petitioner 'sservice career. In fact, such displeasure was also recorded by the Inspecting Judge of the Patna High Court in the writ petitioner 'sAnnual Confidential Report for the year 1989, which was duly communicated to him and was not expunged from his service record despite the petitioner 'srepresentation.

(3.) APPEARING in support of the writ petition, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned counsel, firstly, submitted that the decision taken to invoke the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code in the petitioner 'scase is completely misconceived and without any basis whatsoever, particularly when the writ petitioner had been found to be a good and meritorious officer, and on the basis of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judge 's Association V/s. Union of India, - - - - , his services were extended from 58 years to 60 years. Mr. Jha submitted that although the petitioner had attained the age of 58 years in May 2001, he was allowed to continue in service on extension and nothing could have happened between May 2001 and July 2001 when he was served with the impugned order invoking the provisions of compulsory retirement as far as the petitioner was concerned. Mr. Jha submitted that there was at least nothing on the record, which could warrant such a decision.