AMITAVA LALA,J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the writ petitioner wanted to get the notional super time pay scale from due date and fixation of pension accordingly.
(2.) THE petitioner was a judicial officer and took voluntary retirement from the service w.e.f. 17th February, 1995 and filed this writ petition on 24th May, 1995. The adverse entry in question was recorded in the service record of the petitioner on the basis of report of Administrative Judge, which was communicated to the petitioner vide Court's communication dated 2nd November, 1993, the relevant portion of which is as follows: "....the officer did not enjoy a good reputation during his tenure at Ballia. Over all one may assess him as a below average District Judge." Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that according to rule, before an adverse remark is communicated to the concerned judicial officer, it must be placed before Hon. the Chief Justice and by necessary implication, the rule requires concurrence of Chief Justice for taking action on the adverse remarks against the concerned judicial officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment reported in (A.I.R. 1988 SC 1403) D.K.Agarwal vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, where the Supreme Court has interfered with the order of refusal of super time pay scale and held that the grant of super time pay scale is exclusively within the administrative jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court generally does not interfere with the same but if the High Court acts in violation of any rule framed by it or of the principles of natural justice or comes to any finding not supported by any reliable material, Supreme Court has to examine the matter for ends of justice. In [(1999) 7 SCC 329] P.K.Shastri vs. State of M.P. and others it has been held that a decision to give adverse annual confidential report must be taken objectively after careful consideration of all the materials which are before the authority. In [(2001) 2 SCC 305] Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and others apex Court held that the entry in the confidential rolls should not be a reflection of personal whims, fancies or prejudices, likes or dislikes of a superior. The entry must reflect the result of an objective assessment coupled with an effort at guiding the judicial officers to secure an improvement in his performance where need be; to admonish him with the object of removing for future, the shortcoming found; and expressing an appreciation with an idea of toning up and maintaining the imitable qualities by affectionately patting on the back of meritorious and deserving. In [(1996) 10 SCC 369] M.A.Rajasekhar vs. State of Karnataka and another it has been held that it is now well settled that the object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence of an officer on merits and performance of an officer concerned so as to grade him in various categories as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory and average, etc. The competent authority and the reviewing authority have to act fairly or objectively in assessing the character, integrity and performance of the incumbent.
(3.) THE High Court filed an affidavit through its officer on special duty litigation, from which it appears that the petitioner was given adverse remarks for the years 1982-83, 1990-91 and 1992-93. During the year 1992-93 the High Court had observed that the petitioner did not enjoy a good reputation during his tenure at Ballia. Over all, one may assess him as below average District Judge. This remark would reveal that the officer was not rated to be a very good officer. The petitioner had worked as District Judge Sonbhadra, Azamgarh, Siddharth Nagar, Sultanpur, Ballia and Pithoragarh. The petitioner was transferred from Pithoragarh to Hamirpur as District Judge vide Court's Notification dated 19th August, 1993 but on the request made by the petitioner himself, the transfer order was cancelled vide Court's Notification dated 30th August, 1993. The petitioner was awarded adverse remarks by the High Court for the years 1990-91 and 1992-93 which were communicated to him vide Court's letters dated 3rd January, 1993 and 2nd November, 1993 respectively. The petitioner made representations dated 7th January, 1994 and 23rd January, 1994 against the aforesaid remarks given by the Court. Upon careful consideration of the representations adverse remarks for the year 1990-91 had been expunged by the High Court but the representation dated 23rd January, 1994 regarding expunction of the adverse remarks for the year 1992-93 had been declined. The petitioner was accordingly informed on 19th December, 1994. The matter for considering the grant of super time pay scale to the officers working in the selection grade in U.P. Higher Judicial Service including the petitioner was taken up by the selection committee on 20th July, 1994, which gave the following observations: "On over all assessment of service records and the personal file, we find that this officer is not fit for Super Time Scale." The report of the committee was placed before the Judges meeting held on 23rd July, 1994 and it was resolved that the matter of the petitioner be remitted to the selection committee for reconsideration. This was again considered by the committee on 14th November, 1994 and was found against the petitioner, which was placed before the Judges meeting on 18th December, 1994, but it did not approve the name of petitioner for super time pay scale on the basis of the observations of the selection committee. Petitioner submitted a memorial dated 1st December, 1994 for expunging the adverse remarks and the same had been declined by the High Court. The petitioner was informed on 19th December, 1994. ;