M A I N   N E W S

Retire unfit staff: SC

NEW DELHI, June 27 (UNI) — In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court has held as valid the service rule which provides for superannuation of an officer who has no potential for continued useful service beyond a particular age.

‘‘There can be no right of an employee to continue in service de hors statutory and continuation in service could be only subject to the conditions provided’’, the court observed.

The ruling was handed down yesterday by a Division Bench comprising Mr Justice K.T. Thomas and Mr Justice M.B. Shah while dismissing a writ petition by Mr Ramesh Chandra Acharya, a civil judge (senior division of Orissa Judicial Service).

The petitioner had challenged a notification, dated May 11, of the Orissa Government retiring him on his attaining the age of 58 under Rule 71 (A-1) of the State Service Code.

His contention was that since the apex court had enhanced the age of superannuation of officers of the judicial service to 60 and he had a clean record qua integrity and efficiency and there was no adverse entry in his confidential record he should be continued till the age of 60.

The question which requires consideration by the authorities, the court pointed out, was had we not reached a stage where services of government or semi-government employees should be regulated in such a way that only such persons who could render useful service be continued and not those indolent, infirm and with doubtful integrity, reputation or utility? Periodical excercise of reviewing or evaluating the utility was required for better administration and for removal of deadwood or persons having doubtful integrity and reputation, the court added.

The judges said that in their view the rule in question was not only in conformity with the decision rendered by this court in the case of All-India Judge’s Association and others versus Union of India and others (1993).

The court pointed out that the benefit of the increase in the retirement age to 60 shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system.

The court, therefore, clarified that the assessment at the age of 58 was for the purpose of finding out the suitability of the officers concerned for entitlement of the benefit of the increased age of superannuation.

It is an addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement at the earlier stages under the respective service rule.

Therefore the Orissa High Court was fully justified in following the aforesaid rules in evaluating the record of the petitioner for his continued utility in judicial service, the court adjudged.

In this view of the matter, the court said, there was no substance in the contention that Rule 71(A-1) is ultra-virus, invalid or against the judgement rendered by this court in All-India Judges Association case.