CHATUR SINGH DHRUW v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

2026 INSC 1205 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24392 OF 2023)

CHATUR SINGH DHRUW .…. APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.25201 OF 2023)

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Civil Appeals arise from the judgments and orders dated 12th

April 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at

Bilaspur in Writ Appeal Nos. 565 and 577 of 2019, whereby the Division Bench

affirmed the judgments and orders dated 23rd August 2019 rendered by the learned

Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5765 and 5680 of 2017. By the said judgments,

the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the orders dated 09th October Signature Not Verified

2017 passed by Respondent No.3, whereby the Appellants were compulsorily Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2026.11.06 16:46:15 IST Reason:

retired from service.

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 1 of 27

BRIEF FACTS

3. The facts giving rise to the present Appeals, shorn of unnecessary details, are

that the Appellants were initially appointed as Peons (Class-IV) in the Legal

Metrology Department (Weights and Measures Department), Raipur, in the years

1989 and 1993 respectively. In due course, they were promoted to the post of

Assistant Grade-III in the years 2012 and 2013. Thereafter, their services came to

be regularized by separate orders both dated 19th June 2015.

4. On 25th April 2017 the General Administration Department, Government of

Chhattisgarh, issued a Circular addressed to all Departments of the State

Government directing them to undertake a review of service records and to consider

the case of such Government servants that fulfilled the parameters prescribed for

compulsory retirement. The relevant extract of the said Circular is reproduced

below:

“Through the aforesaid referred Circular issued by the General Administration Department in undivided Madhya Pradesh, detailed guidelines have been issued regarding review of service records of such government servants who have completed 50 years of age or 20 years of service. Under the Fundamental Rule 56 provided in the sub-Clause 1 of the Clause 1 of the said circular, the provisions relating to retirement age of every government servant other than government teachers and Grade-4 Government servant and upon completing qualifying service or 50 years of age as provided under Rule 42B of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service Pension Rules, 1976 in sub-clause 2, the provisions relating to retiring the government servant at any time have been laid down. In Clause 2 of the circular, the criteria and procedure have been prescribed for considering mandatory retirement of government servants who have completed 20 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age under the above provisions.

2. The State Government after scrutiny of Clause 2 of the above circular dated 22.8.2000 which has been adapted in the State of Chhattisgarh, while making partial amendments in the criteria and procedure prescribed for compulsory retirement lays down following guidelines:-

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 2 of 27

[1] Criteria prescribed for compulsory retirement upon scrutiny.

While making scrutiny under rule 56 of Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 in respect of government servants who have completed 20 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age, it may be seen as follows:

A. Honesty and integrity being suspicious (for this the entire record of the concerned government servant should be perused)

B. Lacking in physical capacity.

C. The evaluation of reputation and work capacity should be done on the basis of the complete records of the service period of the concerned government servant. For this purpose, it shall not be necessary that every adverse remark or such remark as may be termed as an adverse remark should have been communicated to the Government servant. (Civil Appeal No.6307 of 1994, State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.. v. Bihari Lal, (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 593).

D. The overall evaluation of the records for the entire service period be less than ‘Good’ (B) grade. On the basis of evaluation, it should also be seen whether the work of the last 5 years of the government servant is not decreasing.”

5. Pursuant to the Circular dated 25th April 2017, separate orders dated 09th

October 2017 came to be issued whereby the Appellants were compulsorily retired

from service.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

6. Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants,

submitted that the criteria and parameters adopted while recommending the cases

of the Appellants for compulsory retirement were not uniformly applied to other

similarly situated employees. According to the learned counsel, the exercise

undertaken by the Respondents was arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as

several employees similarly placed as the Appellants were not subjected to the

same treatment. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon the order

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 3 of 27

dated 09th October 2025 passed by this Court, whereby the Respondents were

directed to place on record an affidavit to be personally affirmed by the Principal

Secretary of the concerned Department, specifically stating that no person similarly

situated to the Appellants had been ‘left out from the exercise of weeding out dead

wood from the cadre of the petitioners and being compulsorily retired’.

7. He contended that the orders impugned herein, though couched as orders of

compulsory retirement, were in substance punitive and stigmatic in nature.

Elaborating this submission, he invited the Court’s attention to the findings

recorded in the inquiry reports pertaining to the Appellants and urged that the said

findings unequivocally attributed misconduct and adverse personal characteristics

to them. It was, therefore, submitted that the orders of compulsory retirement were

founded upon allegations carrying a stigma and could not have been passed without

affording the Appellants the procedural safeguards attendant upon disciplinary

proceedings. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was placed on the

following extracts from the inquiry reports relating to the two Appellants (together

with their translated versions):-

“(3) श्री मनहरण लाल सा�, सहायक वग�-03 :- श्री मनहरण लाल सा� सहायक वग�-03 के सेवाकाल म� उपल� गोपनीय च�रत्रावली के मू�ांकन पर उ�� “ख” से नीचे (2.56 अंक) प्रा� होना पाया गया है । (प�रिश� क्रमांक 05) उनके गोपनीय प्रितवेदन म� भी इनके काय� को असंतोषजनक पाया गया ह�। वे िलिपक काय� कर नहीं पाते ह� । उनकी �ाित एवं काय��मता पर प्रितकूल टीपं दी गई है और इनका काय� �र लगातार घट रहा है । प�रिश� क्रमांक 07 (01-14) म� संल� है। … (5) श्री चतुर िसंह ध्रुव सहायक वग�-03 :- श्री चतुर िसंह ध्रुव सहायक वग�-03 के सेवाकाल म� उपल� गोपनीय प्रितवेदन के मू�ांकन हे तु शासन �ारा िनधा��रत मापद� दे िबन्दु क्रमांक (4) के (द) (1) म� िवचार �ेत्र हेतु िवगत 05 वष� के (2013 से 2017 तक�) गोपनीय प्रितवेदन के अवलोकन एवं समी�ा करने पर पाया गया है िक उ�� वष� 2013 म “क" श्रेणी

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 4 of 27

प्रा� है एवं वष� 2014 से 2017 तक लगातार “ग" श्रेणी टीप अंिकत की गई है। इससे �� होता है िक उनके �ारा ईमानदारी, तथा संिन�ापूव�क शासकीय काय� संपािदत नहीं िकया जा रहा है और उनके काय� म� अपे�ेत सुधार प�रलि�त न होकर काय� �र लगातार घट रहा है । प�रिश� क्रमांक 05 (स.क्र. 14) म� अंिकत संल� है ” “(3) Shri Manharan Lal Sahu, Assistant Grade-III: On evaluation of the confidential character rolls available for the service period of Shri Manharan Lal Sahu, Assistant Grade-III, he has been found to have secured below “Kha” (B) grade (2.56 marks) (Annexure No. 05). His confidential reports also record his work as unsatisfactory. He is unable to perform clerical work. Adverse remarks have been recorded regarding his reputation and efficiency, and the standard of his work has been continuously declining. The same is annexed as Annexure No. 07 (01-14). … (5) Shri Chatur Singh Dhruv, Assistant Grade-III: For the evaluation of the confidential reports available for the service period of Shri Chatur Singh Dhruv, Assistant Grade-III, in accordance with Point No. (4)(D)(1) of the criteria prescribed by the Government, the confidential reports of the preceding five years (2013 to 2017) falling within the zone of consideration were examined and reviewed. It was found that he was graded “Ka” (A) in the year 2013, and from 2014 to 2017 he was consistently graded “Ga” (C). This makes it evident that he is not discharging his official duties with honesty and integrity, and that, rather than showing the expected improvement, the standard of his work has been continuously declining. The same is recorded at Annexure No. 05 (Serial No. 14) and annexed herewith.”

8. Mr. Shukla further submitted that recourse to compulsory retirement could

not have been taken as a substitute for or as a means to circumvent the disciplinary

process. According to him, where the employer was of the view that the conduct

of an employee warranted scrutiny, the appropriate course would have been to

institute departmental proceedings in accordance with law rather than to invoke the

power of compulsory retirement.

9. He also contended that the decision to compulsorily retire the Appellants was

taken without a comprehensive evaluation of their entire service records. It was

urged that while considering whether an employee should be compulsorily retired,

the competent authority is required to examine the employee’s service career in its

entirety commencing from the date of initial appointment. The authorities,

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 5 of 27

however, confined their consideration primarily to the service records of the

immediately preceding years and failed to undertake a holistic assessment of the

Appellants’ overall service profile.

10. Mr. Shukla stated that the adverse entries and below-benchmark gradings

recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports of the Appellants had never been

communicated to them. In such circumstances, it was contended that the said

entries and gradings could not legitimately form the basis of an order of compulsory

retirement. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon the decisions

of this Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725 and

Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 566. The relevant extracts

from the aforesaid judgments are reproduced hereunder:-

A. Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. “ 17. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways: (1) had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future; (2) he would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence, non- communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597] that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.”

B. Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. “8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt [Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 6 of 27

him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR—poor, fair, average, good or very good—must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.”

11. He lastly submitted that in view of the Appellants having been promoted and

their services thereafter regularized on 19th June 2015, any adverse entries or

below-benchmark gradings recorded prior thereto lost their significance and could

not legitimately be relied upon for the purpose of forming an opinion regarding

their compulsory retirement. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned

counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das &

Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299,

wherein it was held as under:-

“34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: xxx xxx xxx (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 to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable 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.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

12. Per contra, Mr. Rajat Nair, learned Additional Advocate General appearing

on behalf of the Respondent-State of Chhattisgarh submitted that the exercise of

scrutiny and review of the service records leading to the compulsory retirement of

the Appellants was undertaken strictly in accordance with Circular No.F.7-

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 7 of 27

1/2017/1-3 dated 25th April 2017 issued by the General Administration Department,

Government of Chhattisgarh, which had been issued in continuation of the earlier

Circular No.C-24/2000/3/1 dated 22nd August 2000 governing the policy relating

to compulsory retirement of Government servants.

13. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that pursuant to the

aforesaid Circular dated 25th April 2017, a Screening Committee at the Head of

Department level was constituted for undertaking the review of cases of non-

gazetted employees in the Legal Metrology Department for the purpose of

compulsory retirement. The Committee met on 4th September 2017 in the office of

the Controller, Legal Metrology, Naya Raipur and comprised Dr. Ajay Kumar

Pathak, Controller, Legal Metrology, Chhattisgarh, as Chairman, Manoj Kumar

Soni, Special Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection

Department, as Member and James Tirkey, Deputy Controller, Legal Metrology,

Chhattisgarh, as Member.

14. He pointed out that the aforesaid Committee was entrusted with the

responsibility of examining the complete service records, confidential reports,

integrity profile, physical fitness and overall suitability for continued service of all

clerical-cadre employees who had either attained the age of 50 (fifty) years or

completed 20 (twenty) years of qualifying service as on 01st July 2017.

15. Learned Additional Advocate General further emphasised that in accordance

with the mandate of the General Administration Department Circular dated 25th

April 2017, the Screening Committee initially identified all clerical-cadre

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 8 of 27

employees of the Legal Metrology Department who had either attained the age of

50 (fifty) years or completed 20 (twenty) years of qualifying service as on 01st July

2017 and consequently, fell within the zone of consideration for review.

16. He submitted that upon examination of the records maintained in the

Controlling Office, a total of 14 (fourteen) clerical staff members were found to

satisfy the prescribed criteria and thereby fell within the zone of consideration. It

was contended that the Committee thereafter undertook a comprehensive scrutiny

of the service dossiers, confidential character rolls, personal files, integrity records,

as well as leave and medical records of all the fourteen employees, without

excluding any employee who fulfilled the criteria prescribed under the Circular.

17. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the parameters

adopted by the Screening Committee, as recorded in the Minutes of Meeting

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘MOM’) dated 4th September 2017 were as follows:-

(a) Honesty and Integrity: Assessment of the employee’s integrity profile on the

basis of the entire service record, including adverse entries, pending

complaints and remarks bearing upon the employee’s character and conduct.

(b) Physical Capacity: Evaluation of the employee’s physical fitness and

medical record to ascertain whether any physical limitation existed which

could affect the employee’s continued efficiency in service.

(c) Efficiency and General Reputation: Consideration of the employee’s overall

performance, including punctuality, work output, discipline and such other

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 9 of 27

factors as may have a bearing on the employee’s suitability for public service

and general reputation.

(d) Overall Assessment of the Entire Service Record: A cumulative evaluation

of the employee’s entire service career. As recorded in the MoM, where the

employee’s overall performance was assessed to be below Grade ‘B’, such

employee was regarded as not meeting the requisite standard for further

retention in service.

(e) Assessment of Decline in Performance through Confidential Reports: For

the purpose of determining whether there existed a declining trend in

performance, the Committee undertook a specific scrutiny of the

Confidential Character Rolls for the period 2013-2017, with particular

emphasis on repeated ‘C’ gradings or a discernible downward trajectory in

the employee’s performance.

(f) Numerical Assessment of Confidential Report Gradings: In order to ensure

uniformity and objectivity in evaluation, the gradings recorded in the

Confidential Reports were assigned numerical values in accordance with the

following scale:

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 10 of 27

Thereafter, the aggregate score obtained by an employee was divided by the

number of years for which Confidential Reports were available so as to

arrive at the employee’s average performance score.

(g) Treatment of Missing Confidential Report Years: Where Confidential

Reports pertaining to certain years were not available, the Committee

evaluated the entries contained in the available Confidential Reports and

determined the average grading solely on the basis of such extant records.

The non-availability of Confidential Reports for any preceding or

subsequent period was not construed to the detriment of the employee, nor

was any adverse inference drawn on that account.

18. Mr. Nair submitted that upon the uniform application of the aforesaid

parameters to all 14 (fourteen) employees under consideration, 5 (five) employees

were found not to have satisfied the prescribed minimum standards. According to

him, these employees fell below the benchmark grade of ‘B’ in the assessment of

their overall service records and also exhibited adverse or declining performance

trends in their Confidential Reports pertaining to the period from 2013 to 2017. It

was contended that in view of such assessment, the Committee recommended their

compulsory retirement in exercise of the powers conferred under Fundamental

Rule 56 and Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

19. In order to substantiate the contention that the numerical grading

methodology was applied uniformly and without discrimination, learned counsel

invited our attention to the chart reproduced below. The chart presents, in a

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 11 of 27

consolidated tabular form, the Confidential Report gradings of all 14 (fourteen)

employees for the years 2013 to 2017, converted into a uniform numerical scale,

namely, A+ = 5, A = 4, B = 3, C = 2 and D = 1. This according to him, demonstrates

the objective on which the comparative assessment was undertaken by the

Committee.

S.No. Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average

1. Smt. Shivkumari 2 2 3 3 3 2.6 Sainik

2. Smt. Ruby Nigam 4 4 4 4 4 4

3. Shri Shivbhan 3 3 2 2 3 2.6 Singh

4. Shri Ishwar Prasad 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sahu

5. Shri Rajendra Lal 3 3 2 3 3 2.8 Jangde

6. Shri Ramlal Sarute 3 3 3 2 2 2.4

7. Shri Samaruram 3 3 3 2 2 2.6 Porte

8. Smt. Sangeeta 4 3 3 3 3 3.2 Nayak

9. Shri Manharan 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lal Sahu

10. Shri Babu Singh 3 3 2 4 3 3 Kanwar

11. Shri Chitram 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dhruve

12. Smt.Rita 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 Bhattacharya

13. Smt. Prembai 4 3 4 3 3 3.4 Darendra

14. Shri Chatur 4 2 2 2 2 2.4 Singh Dhruv

20. It was, therefore, submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid evaluation and

upon a holistic consideration of their service records, the following employees were

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 12 of 27

found unsuitable for continued retention in public service and they were

recommended for compulsory retirement in public interest :-

S. No. Name Designation

1. Shri Ramlal Sarute Assistant Class-01

2. Shri Ishwar Prasad Sahu Assistant Class-01

3. Shri Manharan Lal Sahu Assistant Class-03

4. Shri Chitram Dhruve Assistant Class-03

5. Shri Chatur Singh Dhruv Assistant Class-03

21. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that upon an examination

of the service record of the Appellant, Manharan Lal Sahu, the Committee found

that his overall service-profile assessment fell below the benchmark corresponding

to Grade ‘B’. It was noted that his Confidential Reports for the period 2013-2017

reflected consistently substandard performance, marked by repeated gradings of

‘C’ and adverse remarks indicating unsatisfactory discharge of duties. According

to learned counsel, the application of the uniform numerical-scoring methodology

placed the Appellant below the prescribed threshold for continuance in service.

The Committee also took into consideration the Integrity Certificate furnished by

the Controlling Office, wherein the integrity of Manharan Lal Sahu was recorded

as ‘questionable’. It was contended that the cumulative effect of these factors,

namely, sustained proof performance, concerns relating to efficiency and

reputation, an adverse assessment of integrity and an overall grading below the

prescribed benchmark, led the Committee to conclude that Manharan Lal Sahu did

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 13 of 27

not satisfy the standards required for retention in service beyond the age of 50

(fifty) years and was, therefore, liable to be considered for compulsory retirement

in accordance with the applicable rules.

22. He further submitted that in the case of Chatur Singh Dhruv, the Committee

observed that he had secured a grading of ‘A’ only in the year 2013 and had

thereafter been consistently graded ‘C’ from 2014 to 2017, thereby disclosing a

sustained deterioration in performance during the relevant period under

consideration. The Committee further noted that his Confidential Reports

contained remarks reflecting unsatisfactory work, lack of the expected

improvement and a decline in efficiency. According to Mr. Nair, the cumulative

assessment of the service records of Chatur Singh Dhruv, undertaken on the basis

of the Uniform numerical-scoring methodology adopted by the committee, yielded

an overall grading below the benchmark equivalent to Grade ‘B’. Consequently,

the Committee formed the opinion that he had failed to attain the minimum

standards prescribed for continued retention in public service and was, therefore,

unsuitable for further retention in service.

REASONING

SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN MATTERS OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT

23. In order to determine the controversy arising in the present appeals, it is

necessary, at the outset, to delineate the scope and contours of judicial review in

matters concerning compulsory retirement.

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 14 of 27

24. It is now trite law that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive

nor stigmatic in character. Such an order does not cast any aspersion upon the

conduct of the employee nor does it imply any finding of misconduct 1.

Consequently, the rule of audi alteram partem, as well as the protection afforded

under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, have no application to an order of

compulsory retirement made in accordance with the relevant service rules.

25. The decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant is founded upon

the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that the employee’s continued

retention in service is no longer conducive to public interest. The ultimate

assessment as to whether an officer has become ‘dead wood’ or whether his

continuance would be detrimental to administrative efficiency falls within the

domain of the executive. However, such satisfaction cannot be found upon mere

conjecture or whim. It must rest upon objective and relevant material available on

record. This Court in Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2012)

3 SCC 580 has held that ‘It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for

compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the concerned

authority but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible

for the Courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which

the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based’.

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 15 of 27

26. Further, where the Government itself prescribes norms or criteria governing

the exercise of the power, judicial review extends only to examining whether such

norms or criteria have been duly observed 2.

27. It follows, therefore, that an order of compulsory retirement must be

supported by relevant material such as Annual Confidential Reports, integrity

assessments, performance evaluations and other service-record entries bearing

upon the employee’s utility and suitability for continued retention. Judicial review

in such cases does not entail a re-appreciation or re-weighing of the material by the

Court as though it were sitting in appeal over the administrative decision. The Court

is concerned only with whether relevant material existed, whether such material

was taken into consideration by the competent authority, and whether the

conclusion drawn therefrom is one which a reasonable person could have arrived

at. So long as these requirements are satisfied, the Court will not substitute its view

for that of the authority entrusted with the decision-making process.

THE POWER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT IS WIDE AND NON- RETIREMENT OF A SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEE DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, FURNISH A VALID GROUND OF CHALLENGE

28. Equally well settled is the principle that judicial interference with an order

of compulsory retirement is warranted only where the decision is shown to be based

2 In Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia (Dr) vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 503 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489, it has been held that Government is bound to follow rules and standards they themselves had set on pain of their action being invalidated.

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 16 of 27

on no evidence, suffers from non-application of mind, is manifestly arbitrary or

perverse or is vitiated by mala fides 3.

29. An employee cannot successfully assail an order of compulsory retirement

merely by contending that another officer possessing a comparable service records

was not subjected to similar action. The evaluation of an employee’s utility,

integrity, efficiency and overall service profile is essentially an individualized

exercise undertaken by the competent authority on the basis of the materials

pertaining to that particular employee. The fact that action was taken against one

employee while another similarly situated employee was left untouched does not,

by itself, render the action unconstitutional or discriminatory. The doctrine of

equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution embodies a positive concept

and does not countenance the claim of negative equality. This Court has

consistently held that an illegality or omission committed in favour of one person

cannot furnish a valid basis for extending the same benefits to another. If a wrong

has been committed in an earlier case, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate a

similar wrong in subsequent cases 4.

30. Consequently, the power to compulsorily retire a Government servant under

the applicable service rules is of wide amplitude and is conditional principally by

the requirement that the authority must form its opinion bona fide and upon relevant

3 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 10 SCC 551 and Posts and Telegraphs Board vs. L.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317. 4 Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 and Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81.

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 17 of 27

material. The mere fact that another officer, who may appear similarly placed, was

not compulsorily retired cannot, by itself, constitute a valid defence to an otherwise

lawful order of compulsory retirement.

IN ANY EVENT PARAMETERS UNIFORMLY APPLIED

31. Having examined the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the

Circular dated 25th April 2017 prescribes a comprehensive mechanism for

reviewing the cases of Government servants who have either attained the age of 50

(fifty) years or completed 20 (twenty) years of qualifying service. The object of the

Circular is to identify those employees whose continued retention in service would

not subserve public interest. The Circular mandates that such review shall be

undertaken on the basis of uniform and objective criteria, including honesty and

integrity, physical capacity, reputation, efficiency and the overall service record of

the employee, particularly the pattern and gradings reflected in the Annual

Confidential Reports.

32. This Court further finds that a Screening Committee was constituted in

accordance with the aforesaid Circular, with due representation from both the

Administrative Department and the Controlling Authority. The Committee adopted

a uniform, objective and transparent methodology for assessing the suitability of

all 14 (fourteen) employees for continued retention in service upon attaining the

age of 50 (fifty) years.

33. Upon completion of the assessment process, the Screening Committee

concluded that 5 (five) employees belonging to the clerical cadre did not satisfy the

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 18 of 27

minimum standards prescribed under the Circular dated 25th April 2017. Insofar as

the Appellants are concerned, their overall service-record assessment was found to

be below the benchmark equivalent to Grade ‘B’, while their Confidential Reports

for the period 2013-2017 disclosed a pattern of consistently low performance,

declining efficiency or other indicators adverse to their continued retention in

service, as duly recorded in the proceedings of the Committee.

34. A perusal of the year-wise tabulation of the gradings assigned to all 14

(fourteen) employees, as reflected in the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary,

Department of Respondent No.1-State of Chhattisgarh, read together with the

Minutes of the Screening Committee, demonstrates that none of the 9 (nine)

employees who were retained in service exhibited the combination of adverse

factors found in the cases of the Appellants, namely, (i) an overall service-record

assessment falling below the benchmark of Grade ‘B’ (ii) sustained gradings of ‘C’

during the period from 2013 to 2017 without any discernible improvement and (iii)

adverse remarks pertaining to efficiency and performance. Significantly, the

Committee, applying the same standards and methodology, recommended

compulsory retirement not only of the Appellants but also of 3 (three) other

employees similarly found to have fallen below the prescribed benchmark.

35. In the considered opinion of this Court, the recommendations made by the

Screening Committee were founded upon an objective evaluation of the utility,

efficiency and suitability of the employees concerned, with a view to maintaining

administrative standards and ensuring efficiency in public service. The exercise

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 19 of 27

was not intended to punish or penalise the Appellants. The materials on record

disclose that all eligible employees, including the Appellants, were subjected to the

same process of review and evaluation, without any deviation from or relaxation

of or departure from the parameters prescribed under the Circular.

36. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the parameters and standards

applied while considering the cases of the Appellants for compulsory retirement

were uniformly applied to all similarly situated employees and that no element of

discriminatory treatment or selective application of criteria has been established.

FULL SERVICE-RECORD PROFILE OF THE APPELLANTS WAS EXAMINED

37. The records further reveal that in the case of every employee, including the

Appellants, the Committee initially undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the

entire service records in order to determine whether the employee satisfied the

minimum benchmark equivalent to Grade ‘B’, as contemplated under the Circular.

Thereafter, as an ancillary and corroborative exercise, the Committee examined the

Confidential Reports pertaining to the immediately preceding 5 (five) years,

namely, the period from 2013 to 2017, with a view to ascertaining whether there

existed any discernible pattern of declining performance, repeated low gradings or

deterioration in efficiency. These Confidential Reports were not treated as the sole

basis of the evaluation rather, they constituted one component of the broader

assessment undertaken on the basis of the employee’s complete service profile. In

any event, this Court finds that the emphasis placed upon the Confidential Reports

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 20 of 27

of the preceding 5 (five) years was fully consistent with Para ‘D’ of the Circular

dated 25th April 2017, which provides as under:-

“D. The overall evaluation of the records of the entire service period be less than “Good” B grade. On the basis of evaluation, it should also be seen whether the work of the last 5 years of the government servant is not decreasing.” (emphasis supplied)

38. It was only after the aforesaid parameters had been applied uniformly and

comprehensively to all eligible employees that the Screening Committee identified

5 (five) employees, including the present Appellants, whose overall service-record

assessment fell below the prescribed benchmark and whose recent Confidential

Reports disclosed patterns indicative of unsatisfactory performance, declining

efficiency or lack of utility in public service. The remaining 9 (nine) employees,

having satisfied the prescribed standards, were found fit for continued retention in

service.

PROMOTION DOES NOT EFFACE SUBSEQUENT ADVERSE ENTRIES

39. This Court is unable to accept the contention that the promotion of the

Appellants rendered the subsequent adverse material irrelevant for the purposes of

compulsory retirement. The principle that adverse entries lose their significance

upon promotion of an employee to a higher post is confined to those entries which

pre-date the promotion and are deemed to have been overlooked by the employer

while conferring such promotion. That principle cannot be extended to obliterate

or neutralise entries recorded after promotion, which relate to the employee’s

performance in the promoted post itself.

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 21 of 27

40. In the present case, the Appellant-Chatur Singh Dhruv, was promoted from

Class-IV cadre to the post of Assistant Grade-III on 14th March 2013, whereas the

Appellant-Manharan Lal Sahu, was promoted from the post of Peon to Assistant

Grade-III on 03rd October 2012. It is, therefore, evident that both Appellants had

already assumed the promoted post prior to the recording of the Annual

Confidential Reports for the years 2013 to 2017, which constituted an important

component of the materials considered by the Screening Committee while

undertaking the review exercise.

41. The record further reveals that Chatur Singh Dhruv was awarded a grading

of ‘A’ in the year 2013 but was thereafter consistently graded ‘C’ for four

consecutive years. Similarly, the Annual Confidential Reports of Manharan Lal

Sahu for the period 2013-2017 disclose repeated ‘C’ gradings accompanied by

remarks indicative of unsatisfactory performance. These entries, having been

recorded after the Appellants had entered the promoted post, were directly relevant

to an assessment of their efficiency, utility and suitability for continued retention in

service.

42. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the subsequent

Annual Confidential Reports of both Appellants reflected declined performance

and unsatisfactory discharge of duties in the promoted post and cannot be rendered

inconsequential merely by reason of their earlier promotions. On the contrary, the

material on record indicates that the Appellants failed to maintain the requisite

standards expected of incumbents occupying the promoted post.

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 22 of 27

43. Equally untenable is the contention founded upon the regularisation of the

Appellants. Regularisation of service in a post already held by an employee does

not amount to promotion based on merit or comparative assessment. It merely

confers substantive status upon the employee in the existing post and cannot, by

itself, be construed as an endorsement of the employee’s efficiency or future

suitability. This Court is, therefore, of the view that neither the promotions granted

to the Appellants nor their subsequent regularisation had the effect of effacing or

diminishing the relevance of the below-benchmark gradings and adverse

assessments recorded thereafter.

THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE NEITHER PUNITIVE NOR STIGMATIC

44. A plain reading of the impugned orders dated 09th October 2017 discloses

that they merely record that the Appellants having completed the requisite period

of service were being retired in the public interest with the approval of the State

Government in exercise of the power conferred under Fundamental Rule 56 and

Rule 42(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

45. The orders do not contain any allegation of misconduct, any finding of

culpability or any expression capable of casting a stigma upon the Appellants. The

language employed therein is confined to the statutory basis of the action and is

wholly consistent with the settled legal character of an order of compulsory

retirement. Since both orders are identically worded in all material particulars, the

order pertaining to one of the Appellants, namely, Chatur Singh Dhruv, is

reproduced hereunder:-

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 23 of 27

“OFFICE OF CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY, CHHATISGARH Indrawati Bhawan, Block II, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur Email ID: clm.cg@nic.in

No.2141/Vi.Ma/Stha/2017 Naya Raipur, Dt. 9.10.2017 ORDER To, Sh. Chatur Singh Dhruv Assistant Grade-03 Office of Inspector Legal Metrology Mahasamund (CGS) 45.

Since, you have completed 20 Years of service as on 08.09.2009, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 2 (A) of Chhatisgarh Original Rule 56 and Rule 42 (1) (B) of Chhatisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, therefore, in the public interest and with the approval of the State Government you are hereby retired with immediate effect from 09.10.2017 without giving you notice. Sd/-illegible Dy. Controller Legal Metrology, Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur End. No..../Vi.Ma/Stah. 2017, Naya Raipur Date: 09.10.2017”

46. This Court is also unable to accept the contention that the observations

recorded by the Screening Committee in its internal proceedings or MoM impart a

stigmatic character to the impugned orders. It is well settled that while examining

the validity of an order of compulsory retirement, the Court must primarily have

regard to the order itself. Internal deliberations, assessments and reasons forming

part of the decision-making process are intended to assist the competent authority

in arriving at its subjective satisfaction and do not, by themselves, render the

consequential order punitive or stigmatic. In the present cases, the minutes merely

record the Committee’s evaluation of the service records, efficiency, integrity and

utility of the employees concerned and cannot be construed as findings of

misconduct or culpability.

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 24 of 27

THE COMMITTEE’S ASSESSMENT DID NOT INVOLVE ANY ADJUDICATION OF MISCONDUCT

47. As noted hereinabove, the review undertaken by the Screening Committee

in September 2017 was a purely administrative exercise conducted in public

interest in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56, Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the Circular dated 25th April 2017. The exercise

neither involved an adjudication of misconduct nor partook the character of a

disciplinary proceeding. No stigma was attached to the Appellants and the

recommendations were founded exclusively upon considerations of overall

suitability, efficiency, integrity and service record, which are germane to

determining whether a Government servant ought to be retained in public service.

Significantly, no departmental inquiry was either pending or contemplated against

either of the Appellants at the relevant time. The submission that the impugned

action was adopted as a device to circumvent disciplinary proceedings is, therefore,

wholly unsupported by the record and deserves to be rejected.

UNCOMMUNICATED ADVERSE ENTRIES OR BELOW-BENCHMARK GRADINGS MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT

48. The submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants that adverse entries

and below-benchmark gradings recorded in their Annual Confidential Reports

could not have been relied upon since such entries had not been communicated to

them is equally devoid of merit. The issue is no longer res integra. In Baikuntha

Nath Das (supra), this Court authoritatively held that an order of compulsory

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 25 of 27

retirement is not liable to be interfered with merely because the competent

authority, while arriving at its opinion, took into consideration uncommunicated

adverse remarks. The Court expressly observed that ‘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 of interference…’. The contention of

the Appellants, therefore, runs contrary to the settled legal position governing

compulsory retirement.

49. This Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by the

Appellants upon the decisions of this Court in Dev Dutt (supra) and Sukhdev Singh

(supra) is misplaced. Those decisions were rendered in the context of promotion,

career progression and the requirement of communicating entries that may

adversely affect an employee’s promotional prospects. The principles enunciated

therein operate in a distinct field and cannot be mechanically extended to cases

involving compulsory retirement, which are governed by a separate and well-

settled jurisprudence. Accordingly, the said judgments offer no assistance to the

Appellants.

CONCLUSION

50. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the process

culminating in the compulsory retirement of the Appellants was undertaken in

accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the Circular dated 25th

April 2017 and that the prescribed parameters were uniformly applied. Further, the

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 26 of 27

decision of the competent authority was founded upon relevant and cogent

materials and that no case of arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or violation of any

constitutional or statutory guarantee has been made out warranting interference by

this Court.

51. Consequently, the impugned judgments dated 12th April 2023 are affirmed

and the Appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending

application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………J. [MANMOHAN]

.…………………………………J. [SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR]

New Delhi; November 06, 2026

SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 27 of 27