THROUGH REGISTRAR v. SARNAM SINGH & Anr.

Association, case (1992] 1 sec 119, the age of superannuation of all the A Subordinate Judicial Officers was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. The Court also fixed a time limit within which the State Governments had to take appropriate steps. On review of the said judgment, the enhancement in the retirement age of the Subordinate Judicial Officers was made subject to the determination by the High Court as to whether they were fit to be allowed an extension or not. This scrutiny was to be held in respect of Judicial B Officers who were about to attain the age of 58 years. This was a temporary measure to be adopted till the time the State Governments were to take appropriate action. The State of U.P., in pursuance of the above directions, framed Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992 which raised the retirement age of Subordinate Judicial Officers C to 60 years. The respondent was compulsorily retired from service principally on account of the adverse remark given by the then Inspecting Judge made after a surprise check followed by an annual check. The writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court on the judicial side on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement passed on the recommendation of the High Court was not based on any material and was, therefore, erroneous. D Hence the present appeal. The respondent contended that as the Retirement Rules framed by the State of U.P. raised the retirement age of the Subordinate Judicial Officers from 58 to 60 years and had overriding effect on Fundamental Rule 56, the E respondent had a right to continue in service till the age of 60 and the rule of scrutiny would not be applicable. The appellant contended that irrespective of the retirement age being raised scrutiny was still compulsory and the direction of this Court has to be read as supplemental to the Rules already framed. F Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD 1.1. The procedure indicated by this Court in All India Judges' Association's case, [1992) l SCC 119, for evaluating the work, performance and conduct of Judicial Officers, before allowing them to continue in service G upto the age of 60 years was evolved as a temporary measure and was not to be adopted as a permanent feature. The choice was left to the Appointing Authority. If the Appointing Authority itself has made necessary Service Rules extending the age of retirement, the above procedure was to be given up as the Officers would continue in service in accordance with the Service Rules made by the Appointing Authority in the respective States. If it was H ' 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A not done, then the Judicial Officers were to continue in service till the age of 60 years in accordance with the directions of this Court, provided the officers, on a scrutiny of their service records were found suitable for the benefit of extended service. [351-H; 352-A, B, CJ

1.2. In view of the Utter Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on B Superannuation) Rules, 1992 which also had the overriding effect over Fundamental Rule 56, the Judicial Officers in the State ofU.P. became entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The directions of this Court for scrutiny of their service records before allowing them to continue in service beyond 58 years, being of a transitory character, yielded place to the C new Rules made by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it was no longer incumbent upon the High Court to resort to the procedure of scrutiny of the service records of all Judicial Officers before allowing them the benefit of extension in the age of retirement. (350-C; 352-D, EJ D

1.3. In the instant case, the service records of the respondent was scrutinised by the High Court at the time when he was completing 58 years of age to decide whether he was fit to be continued in service upto the age of 60 years. This exercise was undertaken by the High Court in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the Review Petition. The High Court overlooked the vital fact that the new Rules already made by the State E Government under Article 309 of the Constitution provided specifically that the Judicial Officers would retire on attaining the age of 60 years. That being so, it was no longer necessary for the High Court to have scrutinised the service records at that stage. The respondent, in view of the new Rules, was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The order of F compulsory retirement passed by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court was wholly erroneous. (353-A, B, CJ ' G