S.Saghir Ahmad - (1.) JUDGMENT , J.-
(2.) LEAVE granted. Sarnam Singh (respondent No. 1), who shall hereinafter be referred to as respondent, was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 12/11/1997 passed by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court which itself, incidentally, is the appellant before us. This Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119, had issued certain directions for improvement of the service conditions of the members of the subordinate judiciary in the country. The Union of India and various States thereafter filed a Review Petition which was considered and disposed of by this Court on 24/8/1993 by Judgment since reported as All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 288. It may be pointed out that by the earlier Judgment in the main case of All India Judges' Association (supra), one of the directions related to the enhancement of superannuation age of all the subordinate Juridical Officers upto 60 years. This question was also considered in the Review Petition and while rejecting the contention of the Union of India and other States that age of retirement should not be enhanced to 60 years, this Court, inter alia, observed as under : "30. There is, however, one aspect we should emphasis here. To that extent the direction contained in the main judgment under review shall stand modified. The benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years, shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of tir past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a potential for continued useful service. It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. The potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate Committees of Judges of the respective High Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the Judicial officer's past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters. 31. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service Rules applicable to the judicial officers. Those who will not be found fit and eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement. The exercise should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58 years even in cases where earlier the age of superannuation was less than 58 years. It is necessary to make it clear that this assessment is for the purpose of finding out the suitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of the benefit of the increased age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. It is in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement and the compulsory retirement at the earlier stage/s under the respective Service Rules". Pursuant to the above directions, the High Courts, all over the country, before allowing Officers of the subordinate judiciary to continue in service upto the age of 60 years, scrutinised the work, conduct and performance of all Officers who were about to attain the age of 58 years, to determine whether they were fit to be allowed an extension in service or were fit to be compulsorily retired. This scrutiny was done in accordance with the procedure laid down by the respective Service Rules relating to compulsory retirement as applicable to the Judicial Officers.
(3.) THIS exercise was done in the case of respondent also who was compulsorily retired from service principally on account of the adverse remark given by the then Inspecting Judge who had made a surprise inspection of the Moradabad Judgeship on 18/4/1995, in cognition, which was followed by the annual inspection by the Inspecting Judge (Mr. Justice R.B. Mehrotra) from 22/5/1995to 28/5/1995. A reference to the surprise inspection as also to the regular inspection shall be made later as we intend to consider a more important aspect first on which the whole appeal can be disposed of finally. The principal contention urged by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent is that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in its Judgment in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and others, (1992) 1 SCC 119, the U.P. Government framed new Rules, namely, U.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement on Supernnuation) Rules, 1992 which were notified on 20/10/1992 by which the age of retirement of the Judicial Officers was raised from 58 years to 60 years. It is contended that since the State Government itself had framed new Rules by which the age of retirement was raised from 58 years to 60 years, the age of retirement fixed under Fundamental Rule 56, contained in Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part 2 to 4, would not be applicable to the Judicial Officers as it is specifically provided in the new Rules that they shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. Mr. P.P. Rao contends that the age of retirement having been raised from 58 years to 60 years, the respondent had a right to continue in service till the age of 60 years and the rule of scrutiny envisaged by this Court in its Judgment dated 24/8/ 1993, (1993) 4 SCC 288, would not be applicable.;