Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mool Chand Jadam S/O Sh. Tej Mal Jadam vs State Of Rajasthan … on 2 May, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 806/2022
Mool Chand Jadam S/o Sh. Tej Mal Jadam, Resident of 133/I,
Dayanand Colony, Ram Nagar, Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector (Land Records),
Ajmer (Rajasthan).
2. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Samadaria
Mr. Arihant Samadaria
For Respondent(s) : None Present
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
02/05/2025
(Per Hon. Anand Sharma)J.
1. This Special Appeal (Writ) has been filed by the appellant-
non-petitioner against judgment dated 08.04.2022 passed by the
writ Court in SBCWP No. 7858/2004 whereby writ petition filed by
the State of Rajasthan against order dated 31.08.2004 passed by
Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’) in Appeal No. 1513/2001 has been allowed and order
dated 31.08.2004 passed by learned Tribunal, for quashing the
order of compulsory retirement of the appellant dated 21.09.2000,
has been set aside.
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed on the
post of Patwari in respondent-Department on 01.05.1974. His
services were confirmed w.e.f. 29.10.1979. On completion of nine
years of service, the appellant was granted benefits of First
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (2 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
Selection Grade w.e.f. 05.06.1992. Thereafter, as per appellant, he
was selected and appointed on the post of Land Record Inspector
on 31.08.1992 on probation. On completion of probation period,
appellant was confirmed on the post of Land Record Inspector.
3. Mr. Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that a Screening Committee was constituted for examining record
of as many as 19 employees of the respondent-Department for
the purpose of compulsory retirement, out of which three were
holding the post of Land Record Inspectors and remaining 16 were
Patwaries. Recommendation of Screening Committee was further
scrutinized by the Review Committee and thereafter
recommendation was made for compulsory retirement of as many
as 11 employees including the appellant. On the basis of such
recommendation, order dated 21.09.2000 was passed by the
District Collector (Land Records), Ajmer, whereby in exercise of
powers conferred by Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Pensions) Rules, 1996 on completion of 15 years of service,
premature retirement was given to the appellant in public interest
with effect from the date of receipt of the order. Along with the
order, Bank Draft of three months pay and allowances in lieu of
notice was also enclosed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that feeling
aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2000, appellant filed appeal
No.1513/2001 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate
Tribunal, Jaipur. In the aforesaid Appeal, following prayers were
made:-
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (3 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your honor may
graciously be pleased to accept this appeal and allow
passing other necessary order in the nature thereof:-
i) reinstate the appellant with all consequential
benefits;
ii) quashing and setting aside the orders dated
21.09.2000 (Annex.-10)
iii) Cost of the appeal may be awarded to the
appellant.
Any other appropriate order which may be found
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case be passed in favour of the appellant.”
5. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Tribunal
after hearing both the parties to the appeal, quashed order of
compulsory retirement dated 21.09.2000 with further direction to
reinstate the appellant in service by maintaining continuity in
service along with all other consequential benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that order
dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal was put to challenge by
the State of Rajasthan by way of filing SBCWP No. 7858/2004
before the writ Court, however, in the meantime on account of
setting aside the order of compulsory retirement by the Tribunal,
the appellant was allowed to join in the Department on
04.09.2004.
7. Vide order dated 05.04.2005, the writ Court stayed the
effect and operation of the order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the
Tribunal and as a consequence thereof, the District Collector
passed order dated 15.04.2005 treating the appellant to have
been compulsorily retired. Later on the writ Court finally allowed
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (4 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
SBCWP No.7858/2004 vide impugned judgment dated
08.04.2022.
8. While pressing his Appeal against the judgment of the writ
Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that writ Court
has erroneously interfered with the order dated 31.08.2004
passed by the Tribunal without properly examining the facts of the
case, material on record and law prevailing for the time being in
force. Whereas after examining the record meticulously, the
Tribunal has found the order of compulsory retirement to be
arbitrary and illegal, for the reason that the order was passed by
the competent authority in quite hot-haste and only by blindly
relying upon the recommendation made by the Screening
Committee without there being any independent application of
mind of its own.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that
since the penalties and the adverse entries in ACRs against the
appellant have been declared as ineffective by the Tribunal vide its
order dated 31.08.2004, therefore the Tribunal has committed no
mistake in quashing the order of compulsory retirement dated
21.09.2000.
10. Learned counsel for the Appellant has also indicated that it
was argued before the writ Court that he has been subjected to
hostile discrimination, in the manner that other employees namely
Shri Biram Ram Bhatt, Kayam Ali and Madan Lal Ajmera, despite
having much worse service record than the appellant, have yet
been retained in service by the Government,
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (5 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
whereas, on the other hand, the appellant has been retired at
premature stage by issuing order of compulsory retirement dated
21.09.2000, only on the basis of minor penalties in his service
record. However, the writ Court has not appreciated the aforesaid
contention in right perspective. The appellant has prayed for
quashing judgment dated 08.04.2022 passed by the writ Court
and to confirm order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal.
11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also
perused the record.
12. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant
that in a span of 26 years of service, as many as 19 penalties
were imposed upon the appellant after holding departmental
enquiries in accordance with the Rules. Details of such penalties
have been extracted by the writ Court in its judgment dated
08.04.2022 in the following manner:-
“Sr.No. Date Punishment under Provision Punishment
1. 10.12.1976 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure
2. 31.12.1977 Rule 15 (2) of LR Rules Warning
3. 15.03.1978 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure
4. 13.04.1978 Rule 15 (2) of LR Rules Warning
5. 28.01.1981 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Writt.Warning
6. 05.11.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure
7. 10.11.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one
grade increment
without cumulative
effect
8. 22.07.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one
grade increment
without cumulative
effect
9. 22.07.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one
grade increment
without cumulative
effect(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (6 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
10. 03.05.1983 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure
11. 01.04.1983 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Censure
12. 05.02.1982 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning
13. 30.11.1985 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning
14. 20.03.1986 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning
15. 26.09.1994 Rule 16 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one
grade increment
without cumulative
effect
16. 11.02.1997 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Recorded Warn.
17. 13.08.1991 Rule 16 of CCA Rules Censure
18. 20.07.1999 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one
grade increment
without cumulative
effect.
19. 27.03.1996 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one
grade increment
without cumulative
effect.”
13. Apart from above, it has also been recorded by the writ
Court that in addition to aforesaid 19 penalties, appellant was also
having adverse entries in his APARs for the year 1988-89.
14. After referring to the details of the penalties, the writ Court
has observed that passing order of compulsory retirement in
exercise of Rule 53(i) of the Rules of 1996 is indeed an exercise to
weed out the dead wood from the Department after following
procedure of screening by the Committee. During such exercise,
the entire record of the incumbent can be taken into consideration
which includes penalties as well as adverse entries in APARs.
Looking to the large number of penalties consistently imposed
upon the appellant as well as adverse entries in his APARs, the
writ Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that on account of
his below average performance the appellant has lost his utility in
the Department and therefore, it was in public interest to issue
order of compulsory retirement.
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (7 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
15. While examining the validity of the order of compulsory
retirement, the writ Court has relied upon judgments delivered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das And
Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer and Anr., reported in
1992(2) SCC 299; Union of India & Ors. v. Dulal Dutt,
reported in 1993(2) SCC179; Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2020 (1) SCC 801; Pyare
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in2010
(10) SCC 693; and Central Industrial Security Force v. HC
(GD) Om Prakash reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 128, State of
Punjab Vs. Gurudas Singh reported in 1998(4) SCC 92, State
of U.P. And Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal, reported in 1994 (Supp) 3 SCC
593, State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. Suryakant Chunnilal
Shah, reported in 1998 (8) JT 326, Madan Mohan Choudhary
Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1999 (1) JT 459 and other
judgments.
16. On the basis of principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, the writ Court has observed that it was a fit case for
exercising powers to compulsory retire the appellant whose record
speaks itself regarding consistently below average performance of
the appellant.
17. The submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant
that despite possessing much worse record than the appellant,
other employees have been retained in service, whereas appellant
has been compulsorily retired despite having lesser adverse
record, the writ Court has rightly observed that plea of
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (8 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
discrimination in such matters in not entertainable for the reason
that doctrine of equality is a positive concept and no person can
be allowed to claim negative equality as a matter of right. In order
to support its observation, the writ Court has relied upon the
judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Vs. Rajit Singh in
Civil Appeal Nos.2049-2050/2022 decided on 22.03.2022. We find
that such observation made by the writ Court is a correct
approach, since mere contention of the appellant that other
employees had worse record than the appellant, would not
improve his own bad record and would also not confer any right
upon the appellant for making a prayer to quash the order of
compulsory retirement by citing example of wrong benefit, if any,
given to other persons. It is settled proposition of law that one
who has come to the Court is required to stand on his own legs.
Apparently, the appellant has utterly failed to make out any case
of infringement of any of his statutory or fundamental rights.
18. We have also examined the order passed by the Tribunal. It
is matter of record that while laying challenge to the order of
compulsory retirement, no prayer whatsoever was made by the
appellant in his memo of appeal for quashing the penalties
imposed/adverse entries recorded in his service record. However,
ignoring the absence of any such prayer, the Tribunal in its order
dated 31.08.2004 has declared such penalties and adverse entries
as ineffective. While doing so the Tribunal has transgressed its
jurisdiction and there was no occasion to arrive at such a finding.
We are satisfied that the Tribunal has utterly failed to examine the
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (9 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
record properly and therefore the writ Court has rightly quashed
the order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal.
19. We would like to refer that in the case of Nand Kumar
Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. reported in (2012) 3
SCC 580, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“28. We now proceed to consider the second order passed
by the High Court for recommending the case of the
Appellant to the State Government to accept and issue
appropriate notification to compulsorily retire the Appellant
from Judicial Service. It is now well settled that the object
of compulsory retirement from service is to weed out the
dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of
efficiency and honesty and to keep the judicial service
unpolluted. Keeping this object in view, the contention of
the Appellant has to be appreciated on the basis of the
settled law on the subject of Compulsory retirement.
29. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer
MANU/SC/0193/1992:(1992) 2 SCC 299, three Judge
Bench of this Court has laid down the principles regarding
the Order of Compulsory retirement in public interest:
“34. The following principles emerge from the above
discussion:
(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a
punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion
of misbehaviour.
(ii)The order has to be passed by the government on
forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to
retire a government servant compulsorily. The order
is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the
government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the
context of an order of compulsory retirement. This
does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded
altogether. While the High Court or this Court would
not examine the matter as an appellate court, they
may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is
arbitrary- in the sense that no reasonable person
would form the requisite opinion on the given
material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse
order.
(iv)The government (or the Review Committee, as
the case may be) shall have to consider the entire
record of service before taking a decision in the
matter-of course attaching more importance to record
of and performance during the later years. The record(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (10 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]to be so considered would naturally include the
entries in the confidential records/character rolls,
both favorable and adverse. If a government servant
is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the
adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more
so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection)
and not upon seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to
be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that
while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks
were also taken into consideration. That circumstance
by itself cannot be a basis for interference.
Interference is permissible only on the grounds
mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been
discussed in paras 30 to 32 above.
30. “28. In… Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar
MANU/SC/0105/1999: (1999) 3 SCC 396, this Court
was considering the order of compulsory retirement of
the Appellant, who was a Member of the Superior Judicial
Service in the State of Bihar. On a writ petition filed by
the Appellant in the High Court, challenging his order of
compulsory retirement by the Full Court of the High
Court, the High Court on the judicial side refused to
interfere and dismissed the petition. The Appellant came
in appeal before this Court. This Court found that while
on various earlier occasions remarks were given by the
High Court but there were no entries in the character roll
of the Appellant for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and
1993-94. The entries for these years were recorded at
one time simultaneously and the Appellant was
categorized as ‘C’ Grade officer. The date on which these
entries were made was not indicated either in the original
record or in the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent.
These were communicated to the Appellant on 29-11-
1996 and were considered by the Full Court on 30-11-
1996. It was clear that these entries were recorded at a
stage when the Standing Committee had already made
up its mind to compulsorily retire the Appellant from
service as it had directed the office on 6-11-1996 to put
up a note for compulsory retirement of the Appellant.
This Court held that it was a case where there was no
material on the basis of which an opinion could have been
reasonably formed that it would be in the public interest
to retire the Appellant from service prematurely. This
Court was of the opinion that the entries recorded “at one
go” for three years, namely, 1991-92, 1992-93 and
1993-94 could hardly have been taken into consideration.
The Court then referred to its earlier decision in
Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah
MANU/SC/0411/1988 : (1988) 3 SCC 211, where this
Court said that the High Court in its administrative
jurisdiction has the power to recommend compulsory
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (11 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
retirement of the Member of the judicial service in
accordance with the rules framed in that regard but it
cannot act arbitrarily and there has to be material to
come to a decision to compulsorily retire the officer. In
that case it was also pointed out that the High Court
while exercising its power of control over the subordinate
judiciary is under a constitutional obligation to guide and
protect judicial officers from being harassed or annoyed
by trifling complaints relating to judicial orders so that
the officers may discharge their duties honestly and
independently; unconcerned by the ill- conceived or
motivated complaints made by unscrupulous lawyers and
litigants.
31. We are conscious of the fact that there is very limited
scope of judicial review of an order of premature
retirement from service. As observed by this Court in
Rajiah‘s case (supra) that
“21….when the High Court takes the view that an
order of compulsory retirement should be made
against a member of the Judicial Service, the
adequacy or sufficiency of such materials cannot be
questioned, unless the materials are absolutely
irrelevant to the purpose of compulsory retirement.”
32. We also add that when an order of compulsory
retirement is challenged in a court of law, the Court has
the right to examine whether some ground or material
germane to the issue exists or not. Although, the Court is
not interested in the sufficiency of the material upon
which the order of compulsory retirement rests.”
20. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel
reported in 2001(3) SCC 314, after analyzing several earlier
judgments given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been observed
as under:
“11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now
crystallized into definite principles, which could be
broadly summarised thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no
longer useful to the general administration, the officer
can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public
interest.
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (12 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is
not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article
311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop
off dead-wood, but the order of compulsory retirement
can be passed after having due regard to the entire
service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record
shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in
passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential
record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be
passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry
when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite
adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is
a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a
punitive measure.”
21. After analyzing the aforesaid judgments it can be deduced
that the key reason for compulsory retirement is to ensure
efficient and effective government functioning by weeding out
such employees whose services are no longer useful.
22. By now it is also well settled that a decision of compulsory
retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the government,
which is derived on the basis of entire service record of concerned
employee.
23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, after having a
glance over large number of penalties and adverse entries in
service record of the appellant, we are satisfied that the State
Government has rightly taken a decision in public interest to retire
the appellant at a premature stage.
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (13 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]
24. For the reasons mentioned here-in-above, it cannot be said
that writ Court has faulted in any manner in quashing order dated
31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal while allowing the S.B. Civil
writ petition No.7858/2004 filed by the State Government.
25. Consequently, being devoid of any merit and substance, D.B.
Civil Special (Writ) Appeal No. 806/2022 filed by the appellant is
hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
pcg/196(s)
(Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 11:11:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)