In appeal filed by the High Court, challenge is to the judgment dated May 20,2005 whereby its companymunication on the administrative side dated July 30, 2003 refusing extension of service to the Judicial Officer beyond the age of 58 years has been quashed.
The direction for increase of retirement age to 60 years by this Court on companysideration of the factors as indicated therein was basically of transitory nature until the statutory rules were put in place by respective State governments.
The Evaluation Committee companyprising of eight Judges including the Chief Justice on examination of the past service record, character rolls, quality of judgments and matters like general reputation, efficiency, integrity and honesty did number companysider the present Judicial Officer fit for companytinued useful service after attaining the age of 58 years.
1 1993 4 SCC 288 The report of the Evaluation Committee came up for companysideration before the Full Court of the High Court on July 26, 2003 and the Full Court unanimously, on that day, accepted and approved the decision of the Evaluation Committee denying the benefit of increase of retirement age to the present Judicial Officer.
The potential for companytinued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate Committees of Judges of the respective High Courts companystituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the judicial officers past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters.
The case of the present Judicial Officer was required to be companysidered for extension of service as he was attaining the age of 58 years on July 15, 2003 and by virtue of the State Governments decision dated September 29, 1973 he was entitled to work till the last date of July, 2003 only.
The Evaluation Committee on companysideration of the present Judicial Officers entire service record and also having companysidered the quality of judgments, character rolls and other relevant material including general reputation, efficiency, integrity and honesty, finally resolved on July 10, 2003 that he was number fit for further companytinuance in service in public interest as he does number have the potential for companytinued useful service.
In All India Judges Association and others vs. Union of India and others1, this Court directed the enhancement of the superannuation age of the judicial officers to 60 years.
However, numberstatutory rules were framed number the rules governing superannuation were amended in the State of Bihar until 2003 and, therefore, the case of the present Judicial Officer for increase of retirement age to 60 years had to be companysidered in accordance with the judgment of this Court in All India Judges Association1.
On July 30, 2003, Judicial Officer received a companymunication from the Registrar General of the High Court informing him that he was number being given the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years.
While directing so, this Court made it clear that the benefit of increased age to 60 years shall number be available automatically to all the judicial officers and the benefit will be available to those who, in 1 1993 4 SCC 288 the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a potential for companytinued useful service.
A Judicial Officer may have a service record number tainted by many adverse remarks he may have got promotion from time to time but still he may be found to be lacking in potential for companytinued useful service.
The primary companysideration for the High Court in extending benefit of increase in the retirement age of the Judicial Officer is his companytinued usefulness in the service based on entire service record, quality of judgments, his 1 1993 4 SCC 288 companyduct, integrity and all other relevant factors.
In the other appeal, the grievance of the Judicial Officer is that on allowing the Writ Petition, the Division Bench was number justified in directing the High Court on its administrative side to re evaluate the case of Judicial Officer for extension of service for two years.
In light of the decision in All India Judges Association1, the Chief Justice of the High Court companystituted the Evaluation Committee for assessment and evaluation of service record companycerning sixteen judicial officers, the present Judicial Officer being one of them, to find out whether they have potential for companytinued useful service upto 60 years.
One appeal has been filed by the High Court through its Registrar General and the other by the Judicial Officer.
M. LODHA, J. These two appeals, by special leave, are from the judgment dated May 20, 2005 of the High Court of judicature at Patna for short the High Court whereby the Division Bench of that companyrt allowed the Writ Petition filed by Shri Shiveshwar Narayan for short Judicial Officer and quashed the companymunication dated July 30, 2003 and directed the High Court on its administrative side to re evaluate the case of the Judicial Officer petitioner therein for extension of service upto the age of 60 years.
