RAM LAKHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER , who earlier served as a Subordinate Judge IV, Dhanbad, has filed the present writ application assailing the decision of the Full Court as communicated to him by the Registrar General of this Court under letter No. 14377, dated 27.11.1997, Annexure -6, whereunder the Full Court having assessed and evaluated the services rendered by him as a Judicial Officer in the light of the Judgment and Orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 24.8.1993, passed in Review Petition No. 249 of 1992 (Writ Petition No. 1022 of 1998, All India Judges Association and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors.) decided not to grant him the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. He has further assailed the communication received from the Registrar General under Letter No. 8879 and 18241 dated 17.7.1998 and 20.11.1998, as contained in Annexures -10 and 10A, whereunder the writ petitioner was informed that his representations dated 28.1.1998 and 4.5.1998, as contained in Annexures -9 and 9A have been rejected by the High Court.

(3.) IN support of his aforesaid contention, petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that he was appointed as ad hoc Munsif and he joined his first assignment on 2.6.1975 at Aurangabad as Judicial Magistrate. He has further indicated in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition that after being transferred from Aurangabad, he was posted at different places as Judicial Magistrate, Munsif, Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate and as Subordinate Judge and during the aforesaid posting there was no allegation in regard to his conduct, honesty, integrity and performance, which was appreciated by the different District Judges as also by the Hon ble Inspecting Judges of this Court.