Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Of UP Judge After Service Review
Thanks for studying this publish, do not forget to subscribe!
Supreme Court docket refuses to intervene in plea towards Allahabad HC order. Officer had challenged compelled retirement regardless of claiming “exemplary” document.
New Delhi: In the present day, on July 3, the Supreme Court docket of India dismissed a plea filed by a judicial officer from Uttar Pradesh, who had challenged the state authorities’s determination to compulsorily retire him from service.
The highest court docket upheld the choice of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket, which had earlier refused to intervene within the matter.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Ok Vinod Chandran was listening to the petition filed by the judicial officer, who was initially appointed as a munsif (civil decide – junior division) in March 2001. The state authorities had ordered his obligatory retirement in November 2021.
The officer had approached the Allahabad Excessive Court docket towards the obligatory retirement determination. Nonetheless, the Excessive Court docket dismissed his plea on April 22.
The Excessive Court docket noticed {that a} screening committee had been fashioned to look at the service data of judicial officers with the goal to “chop the deadwood.”
After evaluating the officer’s general service document, the committee really useful his obligatory retirement.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Upholds Premature Compulsory Retirement of a Lower Court Judge
The report of the screening committee was then positioned earlier than the total court docket, which agreed with the advice of the committee. Thus, the choice to retire the officer was confirmed by the total court docket of the Excessive Court docket.
In the course of the listening to within the Supreme Court docket, the officer’s counsel argued that the officer had an impressive monitor document and deserved to proceed in service.
The counsel emphasised that the officer had been promoted throughout his service and acknowledged,
“The petitioner will not be a deadwood.”
In response, the bench remarked,
“Kindly give some credence to the knowledge of the total court docket.”
Finally, the bench acknowledged,
“We’re not inclined to intervene with the impugned judgment and order. The particular go away petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
As per the data, the officer was serving as a particular decide underneath the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the time he was retired from service. It was additionally famous that he would have attained the age of superannuation in February 2026, had he continued in service.
Background of the Case
The case considerations a judicial officer from Uttar Pradesh who was appointed as a munsif (civil decide – junior division) in March 2001. In November 2021, the Uttar Pradesh authorities issued an order for his obligatory retirement based mostly on an evaluation of his service document.
This analysis was carried out by a screening committee constituted to evaluation the efficiency of judicial officers and determine these thought of unfit for continuation in service.
The committee, after analyzing the officer’s whole service historical past, really useful his retirement. The advice was later accepted by the total court docket of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket.
Aggrieved by this, the officer filed a writ petition within the Excessive Court docket difficult the retirement order. Nonetheless, the Excessive Court docket dismissed his plea in April 2022, supporting the committee’s advice and the total court docket’s approval.
The officer then approached the Supreme Court docket by way of a particular go away petition, arguing that his service document was exemplary and that he had been promoted throughout his tenure. He contested being labeled as “deadwood” and sought intervention.
Case Title:
RAMESH KUMAR YADAV vs HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.SLP(C) No. 17129/2025
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Retirement
