GIAN SINGH MANNversusTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANR.

                                                                              507

                                                                                       A

                           GIAN SINGH MANN
                                       v.
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANR.                                          B
                               August 22, 1980
                [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. PATHAK, JJ.)

      Promotion-Belated claim after eleven years without valid explanation for
delay cannot be entertained-Article 32 of the Constitution-Punjab Civil Se;r-
 vice (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 do apply to the judicial service-Words
.and Phrases "public interesf'-Whether the expression is vague in the context          c
 of Premature Re'tirement Rules of 1965-Withdrawal of judicial work as a
 policy decision of the High Court cannot be challenged-The concept of pre-
.mature retirement does not fall within the scope of Article 311.
       The petitioner after holding a number of minor posts in the Punjab Gov-
·ernment, was appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) and
 subsequently in April 1965 to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). From        D
·the post of Senior Subordinate-I udge he was reverted as Subordinate-Judge.
 Later, on 4th November, 1978, the High Court ordered withdrawal of all
judicial work from the petitioner and on 8th November, 1978 a Judicial Officer
 was posted in his place. Subsequently he was prematurely retired with effect
 from 30th December, 1978 on which date_ he· completed 25 years qualifying
:service for the purposes of Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules,
  1975. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Con-         E
 ·stitution in the Supreme Court for the quashing of the orders dated 4th Nov-
 ·ember, 1978 and 8th November, 1978, for his reappointment as Senior Sub-
 -ordinate-Judge and, thereafter, his promotion to the Selection Grade post of
  the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from !st November, 1966
   and his prdmotion to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect from !st
 ·November, 1967. He also claimed an injunction against his premature retire-
  .men! from service, which relief was refused.                                        F
     Dismissing the petition, the Court.
     HELD: (1) Inordinate delay without valid explanation therefor to the
,claim for promotion itself is a valid ground for refusal of relief to a petitioner.
 Successive repre<;entations made by the petitioner during the period can hardly
justify the delay. [509 F]
                                                                                       G
       (2) The High Court was justified, as borne out by the records, not promo-
  ting the petitioner to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. The view
 -of the High Court was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. [510 A-BJ
       (3) :fhe Punjab Civil Service (Premature, Retirement) Rules, 1975 are
  applicable to judicial officers as well. These rules were finalised after consul-
 tation with the High Court and therefore, must be regarded as complying with          H
  Article 234 of the Constitution. Further, there is nothing in the Punjab Civil
 Service (Judicial Branch) which excludes the operation of the Retirement Rules.
 [510 E]
    508                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A       (4) As a policy decision was taken by the High Court that all the work
    pending in the court of the Judicial Officers, in respect of whom a recommen-
    dation for premature retirement had been made to the Governor, should be·
    withdrawn immediately pending a decision by the Government on such recom-
    mendation, it cannot be said that the withdrawal of judicial powers in the·
    case of the petitioner was wrong. Even his premature retirement had been
    properly recommended as a policy matter under the Premature Retirement:
B   Rules. [510 G-H]1
        (5) The expression "public interest" in the context of premature retire-·
    ment has a well settled meaning. It refers to cases where the interest of public·
    administration requires the retirement of a Government servant, who with the
    passage of years, has prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency,
    competence and utility called for by the Government service to which he·
    belongs. No stigma or· implication of misbehaviour is intended and punish-
c   ment is not the objective. [511 A-BJ
        (6) There is no discrimination or violation of Articles 14, 16, 17 rnd 46
    of the Constitution in view of the fact, as borne out by the reccrds, that na·
    other judicit.l officer whose record of service was inferior o~. equivalent to
    that of the petitioner had not been prematurely retired. [Sil F, DJ
        (7) The concept of premature retirement which has found expression i~
D   the Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, does not fall·
    within the scope of Article 311. No element of punishment is involved illl•
    premature retirement and Article 3ll therefore is not attracted. [511 E]

          ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 465tl of 1979.
          (Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)
E
          G. S. Mann for the Petitioner.
          Har Dev Singh for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F       PATHAK, J.--The petitioner applies for relief wl.der Article 32 or
    the Constitution against the orders of the High Court of Punjab and
    Haryana withdrawing jµdicial work assigned to him and thereafter
    prematurely retiring him from service.
           The petitioner, after holding a number of minor posts in the:.
G    Punjab Government, was appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Exe--
     cutive Branch) and subsequently in April, 1965 migrated to the Punjab
     Civil Service (Judicial Branch). He remained a Judicial Officer there--
     after. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to promotion to a
     Selectioo Grade post in the iPunjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and'
     subsequently to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. The-
H    claim was based in both cases on the ·footing that a post had been
     resei-Ved in the two services for a member of the Scheduled Castes. It
     was alm asserted that the petitioner was entitled to the posts eveD!•
                   GIAN SINGH v. HIGH COURT (Pathak,   J.)              509

     without reference to such reservation. The petitioner's case is that        A
     his service record was uniformly good, but as the High Court. was
     actuated by mala fides it refused. him promotion. He cites some inst-
     ances to support the allegation of ma/a fides, including the circum-
~    stance that having been appointed to the post of Senior Subordinate
     Judge he was "reverted" as Subordinate Judge. On 4th November,
     1978 the High Court ordered fothdrawal of all judicial work from the        B
     petitioner and on 8th November, 1978 a Judicial Officer was posted
     in his place. The petitioner 'then filed the present writ petition for
     the quashing of the orders dated 4th November, 1978 and 8th Novem-
     ber, 1978, for his reappointment as Senior Subordinate Judge and,
   - thereafter, his promotion to the Selection Grade post of the Punjab
     Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from 1st November, 1966
                                                                                 c
     and his promotion to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect
,.   from !st November, 1967. He also claimed an injunction against his
     premature retirement from service. This Court entertained the
      writ petition but declined to grant interim relief. On 29th December,
      1978 the Punjab Government, accepting the recommendation of the
                                                                                 D
      High Court, sanctioned the premature retirement of the petitioner from
      the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from 30th
      December, 1978 on which date the petitioner completed twenty five
      years qualifying service for the. purposes of the Punjab Civil Service
      (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1965.
                                                                                 E
           In regard to the petitioner's claim for promotion to the Selection
      Grade post in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect
      from !st November, 1966, and to a post in the Punjab Superior Judi-
      cial Service with effect from 1st May, 1967 on the .basis tha.t a post
      had been reserved ih each of the services for a member of the Sche-
      d~led Castes, it seems to us that the ciaim is grossly belated. The        E
      writ petition was filed in this Court in 1978, about eleven years after
      the dates from which the promotions are claimed. There is no valid
      explanation for the delay. That the petitioner was making successive
      representations during this period can hardly justify our overlooking:
       the inordinate delay. Relief must be refused on that ground. It is;
      not necessary, in the circumstances, to consider the further submissiom    G
       of the respondents that the provision on which the petitioner relies as
       the basis of his claim is concerned with the appointment only of
       members of the Scheduled Castes to posts in the Punjab Superior
       Judicial Service and not to recruitment by promotion to that service.

            The petitioner has also claimed that even without the advantage      H
       of reservation he is entitled to promotion to a Selection Grade post in
       the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and to a post in the Punjab,
      12-647 S.C. India/80 ·
    510 .                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [!981J 1 S.C.R.

A   Superior Judicial Service, and that the High Court should have pro-
    moted him accordingly. The position tak(\n in reply by the High
    Court is that the ch,aracter and quality of the petitioner's work and
    conduct, as evidenced by confidential reports pertaining to him, did
    not justify his pro111otion having regard to the guidelines laid down
    by the High Court. We have personally examined the records in res-
B   pect of the petitioner, and we are unable to say that the view taken
    by the High Court is unreasonable or arbitrary.


         We may now examine the contention of the petitioner that the
    order of premature retirement is invalid. He has assailed the applica-
c   tion of the Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975.
    He urges that as a Judicial Officer in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial
    Branch) he is not governed by these rules. It is true that originally
    rule 7 of those Rules provided that they would not apply to persons
    belonging to any judicial service of the State. But by notification dated
    18th August, 1975, * * * in exercise of the powers under Article 234
D   of the Constitution besides other provisions, Rule 7 was substituted
    by another rule which did not exempt members of the judicial service
    from the operation of the Premature Retirement Rules, The Pre-
    mature Retirement Rules were finalised after consultation with the
    High Court and, therefore, must be regarded as complying with Article
    234 of the Cons,titution. There is nothing in the Punjab Civil Service
E   (Judicial Branch) Rules which excludes the operation of the Retire-
    ment Rules. We are therefore, not satisfied that the Premature Retire-
    ment Rules cam1ot be applied to the case of the petitioner.

         It is urged by the petitioner that the High Court, when it applied
F   the Premature Retirement Rules, did not consider the case of the peti-
    tioner on its facts. We have, however, the affidavit of the Registrar
    of the High Court which states that the case of the petitioner was con-
    sidered by the High Court on 26th October, 1978, and having regard
    to the policy laid down by the High Court it was decided ·to recom-
    mend to the Government that the petitioner should be retired from
G   service in the public interest with effect from 30th December, 1978,
    the date on which he completed twenty five years of qualifying service.
    At the same time it was decided as a matter of policy by the High
    Court that all the work pending in the court of a Judicial Officer, in
    respect of whom a recommendation for premature retirement had been
    made 'to the Government, should be withdrawn immediately pending
H   a decision by the Government on such recommendation.· It was. in
    implementation of that policy that the order directing withdrawal of
     judicial work from the petitioner was made.
             GPAN SINGH v. HIGH COURT (Pathak,      /.)              511

       It is next contended by the petitioner that the expression "public    A
interest" in the Premature Retirement Rules is vague and the rule
,is for that reason ultra vlres. In our opinion, the expression in the
context of premature retirement has a well settled meaning. It refers
'to cases where the interests of public administration require the retire~
 ment of a government servant who. with the passage of years has pre- '
 maturely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency, competence and       B
 utility called for by the government serv.ice to which he belongs. No
 stigma or implication of misbehaviour is intended, and punishment is
·not the objective. It appears to us to be beyond.dispute that the deci:
·sion of the High Court to recommend the premature retirement of
:.the petitioner in the light of his record of service must be regarded as
'falling within the scope of the expression "public interest".
                                                                             c

      The petitioner also asserted that Judicial Officers whose record
,of service was inferior or equivalent to that of the petitioner have not
 been prematurely retired, and have been retained in service. The High
Court, however, has stated that no such Subordinate Judge has been · D
-retained in service. We see no reason why the High Court should not
be believed.


     Another point raised by the petitioner is that Article 311 of the
-Constitution has been violated by the :premature Retirement Rules.          E
We think that the concept of premature retirement which has found
expression in the Rules does not fall, within the scope of Article 311.
 As we have observed, 'no element of punishment is involved in pre-
 mature retirement and it is not possible to ~ay that Article 311 is
attracted.
                                                                             F
     The petitioner has justified the filing of this writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution on the plea that his fundamental rights
under Articles 14, 16, 17 and 46 are violated. We find no substance
:at all in that plea.
                                                                             G
      The petitioner alleges mala fides on the part of the High Court.
 It is a reckless allegation, and impossible to countenance. There is
nothing whatever to indicate that the High Court, as a body, was
motivated by maia fides against the petitioner. The instances alleged
by the petitioner in support of his allegation of ma/a fides fail to prove
Ibis case. The High Court has offered a perfectly valid explanation in       H
 respect of each instance. The petitioner points out that the High
Court has refused to permit encashment of unuti!ised earned leave. On
    512                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [198ll 1 S.C.R..

A   the material before us, we are not satisfied that a case of mala fides
    has been made out.                                      '

        These are the only points raised by the petitioner which deserve                  ~·
    consideration. There is no force in them.

B        The petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances there'
    is no order as to costs.

    V.D.K.                                                         Petition dismissed:.




                                                   '


                                                           .._,.




                                                       /