New Delhi, The Supreme Court has held that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character and does not cast any aspersion on the conduct of an employee, nor does it imply any finding of misconduct.
The top court on Friday upheld that the April 12, 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court upholding the single-judge bench’s order affirming the 2017 government circular to compulsorily retire the employees, and rejected their contention that other similarly placed employees were not retired.
“The doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution embodies a positive concept and does not countenance the claim of negative equality. This court has consistently held that an illegality or omission committed in favour of one person cannot furnish a valid basis for extending the same benefits to another. “The court is concerned only with whether relevant material existed, whether such material was taken into consideration by the competent authority, and whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is one which a reasonable person could have arrived at.
If a wrong has been committed in an earlier case, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate a similar wrong in subsequent cases,” it said. The top court further said that where the government itself prescribes norms or criteria governing the exercise of the power, judicial review extends only to examining whether such norms or criteria have been duly observed. The bench said judicial review in such cases does not entail a re-appreciation or re-weighing of the material by the court as though it were sitting in appeal over the administrative decision. So long as these requirements are satisfied, the court will not substitute its view for that of the authority entrusted with the decision-making process,” it said. With regards to the aggrieved employees, the top court said due process was followed in retiring them compulsorily and the recommendations made by the screening committee were founded upon an objective evaluation of the utility, efficiency and suitability of the employees concerned, with a view to maintaining administrative standards and ensuring efficiency in public service. “Consequently, this court is satisfied that the parameters and standards applied while considering the cases of the appellants for compulsory retirement were uniformly applied to all similarly situated employees and that no element of discriminatory treatment or selective application of criteria has been established,” it said.
