The Supreme Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of two employees of Chhattisgarh’s Legal Metrology Department, ruling that such an order, when based on an assessment of an employee’s service record, is neither punitive nor stigmatic and does not require a prior hearing.
The Court also made it clear that an employee cannot challenge compulsory retirement simply because another officer with a comparable service record was allowed to continue in service.
A bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the appeals filed by Chatur Singh Dhruw and Manharan Lal Sahu, who were compulsorily retired in 2017. The bench emphasised that the authority’s decision must be based on relevant material and formed in good faith, rather than on arbitrary considerations.
Service Record Review Led to Retirement
Dhruw and Sahu were initially appointed as Peons (Class IV) in the Legal Metrology Department in Raipur in 1989 and 1993, respectively. Both were subsequently promoted to Assistant Grade-III, with their promotions taking place in 2012 and 2013. Their services were regularised in 2015.
In 2017, the Chhattisgarh General Administration Department issued a circular requiring a review of government employees who had either completed 50 years of age or 20 years of qualifying service.
The assessment was designed to examine an employee’s honesty, integrity, physical fitness, reputation and work efficiency. The committee was also required to consider the employee’s complete service record, including performance during the preceding five years and whether there had been a decline in work output.
A Screening Committee examined the records of 14 clerical employees and recommended five for compulsory retirement.
Dhruw and Sahu were subsequently retired under Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule 42(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
Their challenge before the Chhattisgarh High Court failed at both the single-judge and division-bench levels, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.
Employees Alleged Unequal Treatment, Bypassing of Disciplinary Proceedings
Before the Supreme Court, the employees argued that the retirement criteria had not been applied consistently and that other officers with similar service records had been allowed to continue working.
They further claimed that the retirement orders were punitive in nature and carried an element of stigma, effectively allowing the authorities to avoid initiating formal disciplinary proceedings.
The employees also contended that their entire service records had not been properly examined and that adverse entries had not been communicated to them. They relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions, including Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, in support of their arguments.
They also cited Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, arguing that their promotions and subsequent regularisation should have neutralised earlier adverse entries in their service records.
Opposing the appeals, Additional Advocate General Rajat Nair submitted that the review had been conducted in accordance with the government circular. He stated that all 14 employees had been assessed using a uniform numerical grading system, ranging from A+ (5 marks) to D (1 mark), and that five employees failed to meet the prescribed benchmark.
Compulsory Retirement Does Not Require a Prior Hearing
Rejecting the employees’ challenge, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not, by itself, amount to a finding of misconduct.
The bench observed:
“Such an order does not cast any aspersion upon the conduct of the employee nor does it imply any finding of misconduct.”
The Court accordingly held that the principle of audi alteram partem — the requirement to hear the other side — and the safeguards under Article 311(2) of the Constitution do not apply to compulsory retirement ordered in accordance with the relevant service rules.
However, the Court clarified that the power cannot be exercised on a whim or through arbitrary decision-making.
Referring to Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, the bench stated that the authority’s subjective satisfaction must be founded on objective and relevant material available on record.
Courts Cannot Reassess Service Records Like an Appellate Authority
The Supreme Court also explained the limits of judicial review in cases involving compulsory retirement.
It observed that courts are not expected to re-examine or reweigh the material considered by the competent authority as though they were hearing an appeal against the decision.
The scope of judicial scrutiny is confined to determining whether relevant material was available, whether the authority actually considered it, and whether the conclusion reached could reasonably have been drawn from that material.
The Court thus underscored that judicial intervention is warranted where the decision is arbitrary, unsupported by relevant records or otherwise legally unsustainable — not merely because a different assessment might have been possible.
No Right to Challenge Retirement Based on Another Employee’s Treatment
Addressing the claim of discrimination, the bench rejected the argument that the employees’ retirement could be questioned because other similarly placed officers had not faced the same action.
The Court observed that an employee cannot successfully challenge compulsory retirement merely by pointing to another officer with a comparable service record who was retained in service.
The principle of “negative equality” cannot be invoked to demand similar treatment on the ground that another employee was not subjected to the same decision.
The Court’s ruling reinforces the distinction between compulsory retirement, which is intended to assess an employee’s continued utility in public service, and disciplinary action, which is directed at establishing misconduct and imposing punishment.