Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of Two Chhattisgarh Clerks, Citing Uncommunicated ‘C’ Ratings After Promotion

In brief

The question

Whether the compulsory-retirement decisions were arbitrary or discriminatory because similarly situated employees were retained, or because the prescribed criteria were not uniformly applied.

The court held

The Supreme Court held that the compulsory-retirement decisions were made under the applicable rules and circular, were based on relevant material, and disclosed no arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides, perversity, or procedural illegality warranting judicial interference.

It also directed

It affirmed the High Court’s judgments and dismissed the appeals, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The appellants, initially appointed as Peons in the Legal Metrology Department and later promoted to Assistant Grade-III, were compulsorily retired on 9 October 2017 under Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, following a review under the State’s circular dated 25 April 2017.

¶ 3–5

A Screening Committee reviewed 14 employees and recommended compulsory retirement for five, including the appellants, on the basis of their service records and performance assessments.

¶ 13–20

The appellants challenged their retirement orders, arguing, among other things, that the criteria had not been uniformly applied, the orders were punitive and stigmatic, their entire service records had not been considered, and uncommunicated adverse entries could not be relied upon.

¶ 6–11

The Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions, and the High Court Division Bench affirmed; the Supreme Court heard their appeals.

¶ 2, 51

02Issues

i.Whether the compulsory-retirement decisions were arbitrary or discriminatory because similarly situated employees were retained, or because the prescribed criteria were not uniformly applied.

¶ 28–36

ii.Whether the authorities considered the appellants’ entire service records and could rely on post-promotion adverse entries and below-benchmark gradings.

¶ 37–43

iii.Whether the retirement orders were punitive or stigmatic, or were used to avoid disciplinary proceedings.

¶ 44–47

iv.Whether uncommunicated adverse entries and below-benchmark gradings could be considered in deciding on compulsory retirement.

¶ 48–49

03Law Applied

Under Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, compulsory retirement may be ordered in the public interest on the competent authority’s bona fide subjective satisfaction, founded on relevant material; judicial review is limited to grounds such as no evidence, non-application of mind, manifest arbitrariness, perversity, or mala fides.

¶ 24–28, 30

Where the Government has prescribed criteria, those criteria must be followed.

¶ 26

An order of compulsory retirement is ordinarily neither punitive nor stigmatic, and Article 311(2) and the audi alteram partem rule do not apply.

¶ 24

The authority must consider the entire service record, with greater weight generally given to later performance; under Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, uncommunicated adverse remarks may be considered for compulsory retirement, and non-communication alone does not invalidate the order.

¶ 11, 48

Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, concerning communication of ACR entries in the context of promotion and career progression, do not displace that rule in compulsory-retirement cases.

¶ 49

Non-retirement of another employee does not, by itself, establish discrimination, since Article 14 does not confer a right to negative equality.

¶ 29–30

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Screening Committee reviewed all 14 eligible employees under the circular’s common criteria and that the appellants’ overall assessments fell below the prescribed Grade ‘B’ benchmark, with repeated ‘C’ gradings and adverse performance assessments in the relevant later years.

¶ 31–36

It held that the Committee considered the full service records and used the five-year ACR review as a supplementary assessment of declining performance, consistent with the circular.

¶ 37–38

The relevant adverse entries were recorded after the appellants’ promotions and therefore remained relevant to their performance in the promoted posts; their subsequent regularisation did not erase those entries.

¶ 39–43

The retirement orders themselves contained no allegation or finding of misconduct, and the Committee’s internal assessments did not convert them into punitive or stigmatic orders; no pending or contemplated disciplinary inquiry supported the claim that retirement was used to bypass disciplinary proceedings.

¶ 44–47

Finally, the Court held that uncommunicated entries could be considered under Baikuntha Nath Das, and that the non-retirement of other employees did not establish unequal treatment on the record.

¶ 34–36, 48–49