Read Time: 04 minutes

A Madras High Court bench of Chief Justice Munishwarnath Bhandari and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy converted compulsory retirement of a judicial officer to a voluntary retirement considering her subsequent conduct.

The judicial officer, who was appointed in the year 2000 had continued in service till the age of 55 years. However, on attaining the age of 55 years, the High Court did not recommend the extension of her service owing to certain adverse remarks noted against her in the year 2010 and she was accordingly retired compulsorily.

The officer filed a writ petition challenging the order retiring her compulsorily. The counsel appearing for the judicial officer claimed that the judicial officer's work was appreciated all throughout her career and she held various posts. He continued that the judicial officer was appreciated by her higher officers throughout, barring her initial years of service wherein certain adverse remarks were made against her.

The counsel also argued that the officer had no knowledge about the system of appealing against these remarks and getting them expunged during her initial years of service and her case was taken for scrutiny on her attaining the age of 55 years.

It was further argued that the last adverse remarks made against the officer was in 2010 and nothing significant was made subsequently, yet the same was taken note of at the time of her compulsory retirement. The counsel argued that one remark from 10 years ago cannot weigh against the outstanding remarks and promotions given to the officer subsequently.

Court, on hearing this, noted that “We find reasons to substitute the order of compulsory retirement with that of voluntary retirement with effect from 09.09.2020.”

Court however clarified that the officer would not be entitled to the salary of the intervening period i.e. for advancing the date of voluntary retirement from the date of compulsory retirement.

Court further remarked that “It is made clear that the aforesaid order has been passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be cited as precedent.”

Case title: Dr.I.Jayanthi Vs State of Tamil Nadu