Summary
The High Court could recommend, but could not itself order, a district judge’s retirement at 58. A Governor’s order passed years later could not retrospectively validate that retirement when the service rules conferred no such power. The judge was treated as serving until the normal retirement age of 60 and awarded consequential benefits.
Issues
- Whether a later Governor’s order could retrospectively validate the High Court’s unauthorised retirement of a judicial officer.
Held
- Although the High Court exercises disciplinary control over subordinate judicial officers, termination of their appointment requires action by the competent executive authority on its recommendation. The High Court’s own retirement notification lacked authority. (¶ 9–10)
- The 2004 service rules did not authorise retrospective retirement. Treating the invalid notification as a recommendation after the officer had reached 60, followed by a retrospective Governor’s order, could not deprive him of service benefits until that age. (¶ 10–11)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Division Bench order set aside to the relevant extent and Governor’s order set aside. Salary, allowances and consequential benefits through 31 July 2007 payable within three months of receipt of the judgment.