- (1.) The Petitioner who was a District Judge has filed this petition for quashing the communication sent to him by the Registrar of the High Court on September 27, 1995. Subsequently, an application has been moved wherein a prayer has been made that the order passed by the Governor on October 12, 1995 compulsorily retiring him from service w.e.f. October 31, 1995 be quashed.
(2.) After the decision in All India Judges Association case .v. Union of india and ors., 1992 AIR(SC) 165, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh exercising powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made the U.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on October 20, 1992. Rule 4 of these Rules lays down that a Judicial Officer shall retire from service on superannuation in the afternoon of last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Subsequently, the direction given for enhancement of age in Judges' Association case was reviewed and it was held that the benefit of increase in retirement age to sixty years shall not follow automatically to all judicial Officers and their cases should be considered by the appropriate committee of the Judges of the High Court. The case of the Petitioner was evaluated by a committee constituted for this purpose and it gave a report on September 22, 1995 that he should not be allowed to continue' in service till the age of sixty years and that he should be retired at the age of fifty eight years. It was this decision which was communicated by the Registrar on September 22, 1995 (Annexure-1) to the writ petition. This was followed by an order of October 12, 1995 passed by the Governor in public interest in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 56 (c) of Financial Hand Book Vol. II. Part II to IV directing that the Petitioner shall retire from service in the forenoon of October 31, 1995 and in lieu of notice, he would be entitled to salary and other allowances for a period of three months. The communication sent by the Registrar and the order passed by the Governor are impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that the Petitioner was awarded an adverse entry for the year 1993-94 which was nothing else but a complete reproduction of remarks made against him by a learned Judge of this court while deciding a Bail cancellation application, but the said remarks were subsequently expunged by the same learned Judge on a petition filed by the Petitioner and, therefore, the very basis on which the adverse entry had been awarded to him had disappeared. It has been further submitted that another adverse entry had been communicated to the Petitioner on February 25, 1994 but the complaint, which formed the basis of awarding the entry, was withdrawn by the person making it and, therefore, the said entry also lost its effect. The Petitioner had also filed a writ petition challenging the adverse entry and the decision not to grant Super Time Scale to him in which notices had been issued and the petition was still pending. It is thus urged that there was absolutely no material on record which could justify the order for compulsory retirement passed against the Petitioner and at any rate, such a decision ought not to have been taken before the decision of the writ petition and. therefore, the same was liable to be quashed.;