The Supreme Court upholds Section 45-S of the RBI Act
- By Bhavesh D

A division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice MB Shah and Justice KT Thomas ruled that a judicial officer has to retire at the age of 58 years unless the State High Court concerned makes a positive recommendation in favour of that officer for such continuation. In such a case, the judicial officer can continue upto 60 years.

This ruling was made on a writ petition filed by an erstwhile judicial officer of Orissa. The petitioner had been retired from service by the State Government under Rule 71 (a-1) of State Service Code on attaining the age of 58 years. He sought a declaration from the Court that this rule was against the decision of the Apex Court in the All-India Judges' Association case (1992 and 1993).

Rule 71 (a-1) of the Orissa Service Code provides that a judicial officer belonging to State Judicial Services shall be retained in service upto the age of 60 years if such officer, in the opinion of the High Court, has a ``potential for continued useful service''. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that this Rule was in conformity with the Apex Court's ruling in the All-India Judges' Association case (1992 and 1993) and that it also met with the requirement of `service jurisprudence'. The Bench said: "It is open to the competent authority to frame appropriate rules permitting it to assess the overall performance of the officer periodically to find out whether such officer has potential for continued utility in service."

The Bench observed that the High Court makes the assessment of a judicial officer at the age of 58 years in order to ascertain his suitability for the entitlement of the benefit of the increased age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. This assessment is to be made on the basis of past record of service, character rolls, quality of the judgments and other relevant matters, hich may include overall assessment with regard to integrity, reputation and utility. The Court stated that in addition to assessment for the purpose of continuation, another assessment is also to be for `compulsory retirement' at the earlier stage/stages under the respective service rules. The Court said: "The purpose of increasing the superannuation age for judicial officers was with an intention to raise the tone and morale of the judicial services as a whole and not to continue officers who have lost their utility in rendering service to the society."

The Bench refused to examine whether the recommendations made by the High Court on the basis of Rule 71 (a-1) of the State Service Code was in any way `arbitrary' or `malafide' and said that the petitioner was free to approach the High court for his grievances.

In this case the judges have also stressed the need for a review and evaluation of the utility of Government employees on a periodic basis. The Court has stressed the need for removal of the dead wood or persons with doubtful integrity to ensure better administration.

The Government of India has advised all the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to take appropriate action on the recommendations made by the Chief Justices Conference and by the three-Judge Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India to consider financial and administrative autonomy for the judiciary. The Chief Justices Conference in September 1992 and November 1997 had resolved that the Chief Justices of High Courts may be conferred power to expend, appropriate and re-appropriate money within the budget allocation in respect of the High Court and the courts under its control after keeping Government informed.