Holding

The petitioner remained a judicial officer under Article 235, his lien to the judicial service was not terminated, and Section 7‑C does not supersede the service rule prescribing a superannuation age of 60; therefore he is not entitled to continue beyond that age.

Summary

The petitioner, a judicial officer of the Haryana Judicial Service, was transferred by the High Court in 1997 to serve as Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court. He argued that, under Section 7‑C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he could remain in that post until the age of 67, even though the superannuation age for judicial officers is 60. The High Court held that his lien to the parent judicial service had never been terminated, his name continued on the seniority list, and therefore he remained under the control of the High Court pursuant to Article 235 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, observing that Section 7‑C merely sets an upper age limit for appointment and does not override the service rules governing superannuation. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to the higher superannuation age and could not continue beyond 60 years in the judicial service. The special leave petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 7‑C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers a right to continue as Presiding Officer beyond the superannuation age prescribed by the judicial service rules.
Whether the petitioner’s lien to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service was terminated upon his deputation to the Industrial Tribunal.
Whether Rule 19 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, as amended, is consistent with Article 235 of the Constitution and can be used to determine the applicable superannuation age.
Whether the petitioner was absorbed into a service having a higher superannuation age, thereby qualifying for the extended age limit.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 235
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. Section 7-C, s. Section 8
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963s. Rule 19

Subjects

Judicial officer deputationSuperannuation ageIndustrial Disputes ActSection 7-CArticle 235Control of High CourtLien to judicial serviceRule 19Presiding OfficerIndustrial Tribunal

Judgment

B.S. SHARMA

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

NOVEMBER 17, 2000

B [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 235.

Judicial Officer-Deputation-Control of High Court.
c
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 :

Section 7-C-Scope and applicability of

Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963.
D
Rule 19-Applicability of

Judicial Officer-Deputation-Superannuation-Age of superannuation
in Department of deputation higher than age of superannuation in parent
department-Entitlement to benefit of higher superannuation age.
E
Haryana Judicial Service-Additional District Judge-Deputation as
Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal cum labour Court-lien of Judicial
Officer not terminated in the parent department-His name continued on the
gradat~on list ofJudicial Service-Held, in such circumstance Judicial Officer
F was not entitled to benefit of higher age of superannuation prescribed in the
Department of Deputation-Held, Judicial Officer did not severe his
.. relationship in the Judicial Service-He remained under control of the High
Court under Article 235-He was not absorbed in service which had a
higher superannuation age-Section 7-C of the Industrial Disputes Act held
inapplicable.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No.
19326 of2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .1.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C. W.P. No. 1054 of2000.
H 722
B.S. SHARMA v. STATE 723
Jitendra Shanna and P.N. Puri for the Petitioner. A
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

The petitioner was appointed in the Judicial Service of the State of B
Haryana as a Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate in September, 1975 and was
appointed as an Addi. District Judge in May, 1988. Pursuant to a request of
the Government, the Registrar of the High Court issued proceedings dated
26.7.97 relating to 'transfers and postings' of officers, as per the decision of
the Full Court. The petitioner was shown as transferred and posted as'
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in the place of another C
officer "who was recalled to the present cadre". A notification was thereafter
issued by the Government on 16.9.97 under Section 8 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 appointing petitioner as Presiding Officer, as stated above.

The petitioner now contends that even if he reaches the age of
superannuation in the Judicial Service (i.e. 60 years), he can still continue as D
Presiding Officer till he completes 67 years. He relies on Section 7-C of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The provisions of Section 7-C of the Act read as follows: ·

"Section 7-C: Disqualifications for the Presiding Officer of Labour E
Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals. No person shall be appointed
to, or continue in, the office of the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal, if:

(a) He is not an idependent person; or
F
(b) He has attained the age of sixty five years."

Later, the words '65 years' were substituted as ' 67 years'.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High
Court by a well-reasoned order. The High Court adverted to Rule 19 of the G
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 as adopted in the State of
Haryana initially, and as amended on 24.3.1998 and as finally amended on
11.11.1999 and held that having regard to the control of the High Court under
Article 235 of the Constitution of India, Rule 19 as it originally stood and as
amended on 24.3.1998 was not in conformity with Article 235 of the Constitution
of India. Hence, the rule as it stood before 11.11.99 could not be relied upon. H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The rule as it stands after amendment on 11.11.99 is in confonnity ""ith Article
235 of the Constitution. The amended rule keeps the control of the officers
entirely with the High Court.

The High Court held that the petitioner continued to belong to the
"parent department in the Judicial Service and his age of superannuation
B would be 60 years as per the said rules and his name continued to be shown
in the seniority lists of the Judiciary even after his posting as Presiding
Officer. The petitioner could not state how he ceased to be in the Judicial
Service. The High Court held:
-
"The narration of the factual position in respect of the petitioner
c extracted above reveals that it was the High Court itself which initiated
the case of the petitioner's transfer as Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, while examining annual transfers
and postings for the year 1997-98. Only after the petitioner's transfer
was detennined by the High Court, the same was recommended to the
D State Government which also had the right/authority to pass orders
in that behalf under Section 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The recommendation was accepted and only after the High Court
issues orders of the petitioner's transfer, the Government issued a
fonnal notification giving effect to the decision of the High Court. The
procedure was thus in consonance with the Constitutional mandate.
E
The petitioner has not placed on record any order showing how
and when he severed his relationship from the Haryana Superior
Judicial Service and his service records does not show that the High
Court or the Haryana Government ever tenninated his lien from the
cadre of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. He never tendered his
F resignation from the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. In fact, even
after he had commenced to discharge his duties as Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, his name continued to be
reflected in the gradation list of members of the Haryana Superior
Judicial Service. One such list corrected upto 1. 7 .1999 has been
G appended by the petitioner himself as Annexure P- 3. In the writ
petition, it was never the case of the petitioner that he ever tenninated
his lien with the Haryana Superior Judicial Service and ceased to be
a member thereof."

We are in entire agreement with the above conclusion of the High
H Court. We may add that the petitioner did not severe his relationship in the
B.S. SHARMA v. STATE 725
Judicial Service and that he remained under the control of the High Court A
under Article 235 of the Constitution and was never absorbed in any service
which had a superannuation age of 67 years.

Finally, we may state that Section 7-C merely states that no person shall
be appointed or continued as Presiding Officer if he has crossed 67 years. The
said rule does not prescribe any age of superannuation. It only prescribes a B

- condition for appointment or continuance. If the person is governed by
separate service rules regarding superannuation which permit continuance
only upto 60 years, Section 7-C cannot help him to continue beyond 60 years
or upto 67 years .
..
We, therefore, dismiss the special leave petition.

T.N.A. Petition dismissed.

--