S.Murugaboopathy v. Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22.4.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAHWrit Petition No.21243 of 2003S.Murugaboopathy .. Petitioner vs.

Union of India, U.T. of Pondicherry, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Pondicherry, Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry.

The Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Madras.

The Deputy Secretary, Law Department, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Notification bearingNo.127/1999, dated 28.10.1999 on the file of the second respondent and the Notification bearing G.O.Ms.No.29/99-Law, dated 28.10.1999 on the file of the third respondent and the Amendment Notificationbearing G.O.Ms.No.8/2002-Law (1), dated 10.4.2002 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on the file and to give the petitioner including promotion with effect from 31.10.1999 as District Judge viz., the date on which petitioner's junior in serviceMr.Venkatavardhan was given promotion as District Judge along with pecuniary benefits as if the petitioner has continued in service till he attained 60 years of age on 14.10.2001 within such time that this Court may fix. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran For respondents : Mr.T.Murugesan, Govt.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the statement in the affidavit filed in support of this WritPetition to suggest that the petitioner disposed of different number of cases almost in every year, thereby, there was no occasion to retire him compulsorily under F.R.56(j). The orders were also challenged on the ground of non-application of mind, as according to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner, he attained 58 years on 14.10.1999, i.e. much prior to the impugned orders issued on 28.10.1999.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Pondicherry, while opposing the contentions, relied on Rule 14 of the Pondicherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996,which reads as follows: "14. Age of superannuation.--Except as otherwise provided for in this rule, every person appointed to the service shall retire from such service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he completes the age of fifty-eightyears: Provided that the age of superannuation of amember of the service who is found fit and eligible to continue in the service and his performance is screened by the High Court, shall be extended up to the age of sixty years, and heshall retire from such service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he completes the age of sixty years. "

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions and the orders on record.

From the pleadings made in the Writ Petition and the submission as made, it may be evident that the main ground taken to assail the orders dated 28.10.1999 is that the orders were passed after the retirement of the petitioner. Such a submission cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that Rule 14 of the PondicherryJudicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996, stipulates retirement from service on the afternoon of last date of the month in which the officer completes the age of 58 years. Even if the argumentis accepted that the petitioner attained the age of 58 years as on14.10.1999, for the purpose of retirement, he was to retire on31.10.1999 as per Rule 14 and thereby, it was well within the jurisdiction of the respondents to compulsorily retire him from service under F.R.56(j) on the basis of service records and in public interest, as was done in the present case.

However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner actually attained 58 years in the month when the impugned orders were passed and the respondents took lenient view to allow him to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years under Rule 14, by amending the earlier order, deleting the word"compulsorily" from the orders dated 28.10.1999, the petitioner should be obliged to the authorities instead of assailing the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Now, it is settled law that the compulsory retirement from service in public interest, does not cast stigma. Therefore, the question of giving any opportunity before issuance of such order, does not arise. The order of retirement having been made simpliciter, in fact, the respondents could have asked to refund three months'salary, which was paid to him, but having not done so, the petitioner should be thankful to the respondents.