AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 2150 ::2000 AIR SCW 2232 ::2000 LAB. I. C. 2098 ::2000 ALL. L. J. 1791 ::2000 (84) FacLR 444 ::2000 (1) UJ (SC) 196 ::2000 UJ(SC) 1 196 ::2000 (2) SCC 339 ::1999 (7) Scale 502 ::2000 (2) ServLJ 375 SC ::(2000) 2 ServLJ 375 ::2000 (1) All WC 617 ::2000 (3) ESC 1673 ::2000 (2) LabLN 34 ::2000 (3) RajLW 383 ::2000 (1) SCT 637 ::2000 (4) PatLJR 79 ::2000 (1) ServLR 8 ::2000 (1) UPLBEC 242 ::2000 (1) LRI 1064 ::1999 (10) Supreme 319 ::(1999) 10 JT 99 (SC) ::2000 (1) SRJ 404 ::1999 (10) JT 99

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 1998 All LJ 2271)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. Saghir Ahmad, D. P. Wadhwa , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.311, Art.309— Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules (1992) , R.2, R.4— Compulsory Retirement - Subordinate judicial officer - Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 1991 AIR SCW 2869 : AIR 1992 SC 165 directing enhancement of age - Age of retirement of subordinate judicial officers accordingly enhanced from 58 years to 60 years by State Govt. by framing 1992 Rules - Officer gets a right to continue till he attains 60 years - Cannot be compulsorily retired at 58 years by applying Rule of scrutiny envisaged by S.C. in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 1993 AIR SCW 3195 : AIR 1993 SC 2493 - Since that was a transitional direction. The Supreme Court in 1991 AIR SCW 2869 : AIR 1992 SC 165 had directed the enhancement of age of retirement of members of subordinate judicial service from 58 to 60 years. The Supreme Court, while issuing directions for raising the age of superannuation of judicial Officers from 58 to 60 years had fixed a time limit within which appropriate action was to be taken by the State Government. Instead of complying with those directions, many of States, including the Union of India of India filed Review petitions in which various contentions were raised for recalling the earlier direction for raising the age of superannuation. The contention....