http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SWAMI SARAN SAKSENA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/10/1979

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1980 AIR  269            1980 SCR  (1) 923  1980 SCC  (1)  12  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1982 SC 793  (5)  R          1984 SC 630  (4)

ACT:      Compulsory   Retirement-Temporary    judicial   officer allowed to  cross second  Efficiency Bar-Within a few months compulsorily retired-order-Validity of.

HEADNOTE:      The services  of the  appellant who  was  appointed  in November 1954  were terminated  in December  1962,  but  the termination order  was withdrawn  on January 16, 1963 and he rejoined service  and resumed his duties. Again his services were terminated  by an  order dated May 18, 1966. This order having been quashed by the High Court in August 8, 1969, the appellant was  reinstated with  the benefit of Continuity of service.      In June  1973  he  was  allowed  to  cross  the  second Efficiency Bar,  but on  August 2, 1974 the State Government made an order compulsorily retiring him from service.      In the appellant’s writ petition, quashing the order of compulsory retirement,  a single  Judge of  the  High  Court declared that  the appellant continued to remain in service. In allowing  the appeal  of the State, the Division Bench of the High  Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the order of compulsory retirement was arbitrary because nothing to justify the order had taken place after he was allowed to cross the second Efficiency Bar in June 1973. 11      Allowing the appeal this Court, ^      HELD: 1. The compulsory retirement of the appellant was not called for on the facts of this case. The appellant will be deemed  to have I continued in service on the date of the impugned order [925 H-926A]      2. The appellant was found worthy of being permitted to cross the  second Efficiency  Bar only  a few months before. Although this  Court does  not ordinarily interfere with the decision of  the relevant  authority in  a case of this kind particularly when  the order  was made on the recommendation of the High Court, it is difficult to reconcile the apparent contradiction that  for the  purpose of  crossing the second Efficiency Bar  the appellant  was considered to have worked

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

with distinct  ability and  with integrity  beyond question, yet with in a few months thereafter he was found so unfit as to deserve  compulsory retirement.  There is  no evidence to show that  suddenly there  was  such  deterioration  in  the quality  of  the  appellant’s  work  or  integrity  that  he deserved to be compulsorily retired. [925 F-H]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1296 of 1978.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated 7-5-1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 9/76. 924      S. S. Saksena (In person)      G. N. Dikshit and M. V. Goswami for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PATHAK, J:  This  appeal  by  special  leave  has  been preferred  by   the  appellant  against  the  order  of  the Allahabad  High   Court   dismissing   his   writ   petition challenging an order of compulsory retirement.      The appellant  was appointed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in  November, 1954  as a temporary judicial officer. The State  Government terminated  his services  in December, 1962 but,  on representation  made by  him, the  termination order was  withdrawn on  January  16,  1963.  The  appellant rejoined service  and resumed  his duties.  However,  by  an order dated  May 18,  1966,  his  services  were  terminated again. On a writ petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court, the  termination order  was quashed by the High Court on August  8, 1969.  The appellant  was reinstated  with the benefit of  continuity of  service. His troubles did not end there. Although  he had  served  for  about  fifteen  years, several representation  made by  him to the State Government for his  confirmation met with no response, and he continued to remain  a temporary  Government  servant.  Meanwhile,  in June, 1973  he was  allowed to  cross the  second Efficiency Bar. But  on August  2, 1974  the State  Government made  an order compulsorily  retiring the appellant from service. The order purports  to have  been made in exercise of the powers mentioned in  Note I  to Article  465-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which  provide for  compulsory retirement  of a temporary Government  servant on  attaining the  age  of  SO years. The appellant had reached the age of 54 years. rt was recited in  the order  that the  Governor on being satisfied that it  was not  in  the  public  interest  to  retain  the appellant,  who   was  described  as  a  temporary  judicial officer, required  him to retire from service with immediate effect, with  three months’ pay in lieu of notice. The order was assailed  by the  appellant by  a writ  petition, and  a learned single  judge of  the High  Court allowed  the  writ petition on  September 17,  1975 and  quashing the  order he declared that  the appellant continued to remain in service. The learned  single judge  held that  the appellant  was not covered by the terms of Article 465-A and as regards Article 465, which  was invoked in the alternative in support of the impugned order, he took the view that as the appellant was a temporary  Government  servant  only  and  not  entitled  to pension, Article  465 also did not apply. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed,  and a  Division Bench  of the  High Court has, by  its order  dated May 7, 1976 allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition. The Divi- 925

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

sion Bench  confirmed that  as the appellant-was a temporary judicial officer,  Note 1  to Article  465-A  could  not  be pressed into  service by  the State  Government for retiring him, but it maintained the order with reference to Note 1 to Article 465  holding that  the provision  entitled the State Government to  retire any  Government servant  attaining the age of  SO years  on three  months’ notice  or pay  in  lieu thereof. lt  observed that the power of the State Government to  compulsorily   retire  a   Government  servant  was  not dependent on his eligibility for pension. It was of the view that the appellant, although a temporary Government servant, could be  compulsorily retired  under Note 1 to Article 465. The further  contention of  the appellant  was also rejected that the  impugned order  was arbitrary  inasmuch as  he had been allowed  to cross  the second  Efficiency Bar  in June, 1973, which could only have been if his work showed distinct ability and  his integrity  was beyond  doubt and, he urged, nothing had  taken place  since  to  justify  the  order  of compulsory retirement passed shortly thereafter.      Several contentions  have been raised in this appeal by the appellant,  who appears  in person. In our judgment, one of theem  suffices to  dispose of the appeal. The contention which has  found favour  with us is that on a perusal of the material on  the record  and having regard to the entries in the personal file and character roll of the appellant, it is not possible  reasonably to  come to the conclusion that the compulsory retirement  of the appellant was called for. This conclusion   follows    inevitably   from   the   particular circumstance, among  others, that  the appellant  was  found worthy of being permitted to cross the second Efficiency Bar only a  few months  before. Ordinarily,  the court  does not interfere with the judgment of the relevant authority on the point whether  it is  in the public interest to compulsorily retire a  Government servant.  And we  would have  been even more reluctant  to reach  the conclusion  we have,  when the impugned order  of compulsory  retirement was  made  on  the recommendation of the High Court itself. But on the material before  us   we  are   unable  to   reconcile  the  apparent contradiction that  although for the purpose of crossing the second Efficiency  Bar the  appellant was considered to have worked with  distinct  ability  and  with  integrity  beyond question yet  within a few months thereafter he was found so unfit as  to deserve  compulsory retirement.  The entries in between in  the records  pertaining to the appellant need to be examined  and appraised  in that  context.  There  is  no evidence to  show that suddenly there was such deterioration in the quality of the appellant’s work or integrity that  he deserved to  be compulsorily retired. For all these reasons, we are  of opinion  that the  order of compulsory retirement should be quash- 926 ed. The  appellant will  be  deemed  to  have  continued  in service on the date of the impugned order.      The appellant  pressed us  vehemently to  make an order directing his confirmation and pointed out that after he was compulsorily  retired  as  many  as  12  temporary  judicial officers were  considered for  confirmation We consider that it would  not be  right to  make the direction prayed for by the appellant.  Whether he  should be  confirmed or not is a matter for the relevant authority. That is a matter to which the authority  has  yet  to  apply  its  mind,  and  in  the circumstances it  is not  proper that we should pre-empt its judgment.      The appeal  is allowed  and the order dated May 7, 1976 of the  Division Bench  of the  High Court is set aside. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

order of  the learned  single judge  quashing  the  impugned order of  the State  Government is  restored. The respondent will pay the costs of this appeal to the appellant. N.V.K .                                      Appeal allowed. 927