Compulsory retirement power survives enhanced superannuation age, and service-record based administrative review remains valid.

A rule enhancing the age of superannuation to 60 years did not impliedly repeal the independent power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(c); the enhanced retirement age displaced only the inconsistent retirement-at-58 provision, while the public-interest power of compulsory retirement continued to operate. Article 235 did not require the entire High Court to act in every administrative matter, so action through a duly authorised Committee of Judges was valid. Compulsory retirement orders were sustained because they were based on the officers' entire service record, including adverse material, and no mala fides, arbitrariness, or absence of relevant evidence was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992, by enhancing the age of superannuation to 60 years, repealed or displaced the power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. (ii) Whether the High Court could act through a Committee or smaller body of Judges in matters falling under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the impugned compulsory retirement orders were vitiated for want of justifiable grounds or by arbitrariness, mala fides, or absence of relevant material.

Issue (i): Whether the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992, by enhancing the age of superannuation to 60 years, repealed or displaced the power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules.

Analysis: The 1992 Rules were held to govern only superannuation and to give overriding effect only to the extent that Rule 56(a), fixing retirement at 58 years, was inconsistent with the enhanced age of 60 years. The remaining provisions of Rule 56, including the power of compulsory retirement in public interest, were not altered, amended, or repealed. The non obstante clause was construed narrowly, and the continued operation of the compulsory retirement power was treated as consistent with the scheme of the rules. The earlier directions regarding scrutiny of service records for extension up to the higher age did not extinguish the independent power of premature compulsory retirement.

Conclusion: The power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(c) survived the 1992 Rules and remained available against judicial officers.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could act through a Committee or smaller body of Judges in matters falling under Article 235 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 235 was treated as vesting control over the subordinate judiciary in the High Court, but not necessarily requiring the whole body of Judges to act in every matter. The Court accepted that delegation or authorisation to a Committee of Judges, where permitted by the governing rules and practice, was constitutionally valid and effective for administrative control, including consideration of compulsory retirement. The existence of such a committee did not by itself create legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The High Court's action through a Committee of Judges was valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned compulsory retirement orders were vitiated for want of justifiable grounds or by arbitrariness, mala fides, or absence of relevant material.

Analysis: Compulsory retirement was reaffirmed as not being a punishment but an administrative measure based on public interest and subjective satisfaction, assessed on the entire service record with greater weight to later years. The Court applied the settled limits of judicial review and held that interference is warranted only where the order is mala fide, based on no evidence, or perverse. On the material reviewed, including confidential reports, integrity-related entries, adverse assessments, and other service record material, the Committee's opinion that the officers were not fit to continue beyond the relevant age was supported. No arbitrariness or mala fide was established.

Conclusion: The compulsory retirement orders were upheld as justified and not vitiated.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the compulsory retirement power remained intact, the administrative process adopted by the High Court was permissible, and the impugned orders were supported by relevant service material and public-interest considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule enhancing the age of superannuation does not impliedly repeal an independent power of compulsory retirement under existing service rules, and an order of compulsory retirement based on the entire service record and public-interest subjective satisfaction will not be interfered with unless it is shown to be mala fide, perverse, or unsupported by evidence.

---