Compulsory retirement neither punitive nor stigmatic, says SC
17 Sep 2013 12:22 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday said order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic and has to be based on subjective satisfaction of government authority that it is in public interest.
‘The order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases’, a bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and AK Sikri said.
‘Interference is permissible only on the ground of non-application of mind, malafide, perverse, or arbitrary or if there is non-compliance of statutory duty by the statutory authority,’ the bench said.
The bench made the observation while upholding an appeal filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the state high court order setting aside the compulsory retirement given to one of its drivers.
The corporation had introduced provisions of compulsory and voluntary retirement for its employees and a screening Committee was constituted in 2002 to look into the conduct and continuance of four employees who had attained the age of 50 years or had completed 25 years of service.
‘The order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases’, a bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and AK Sikri said.
‘Interference is permissible only on the ground of non-application of mind, malafide, perverse, or arbitrary or if there is non-compliance of statutory duty by the statutory authority,’ the bench said.
The bench made the observation while upholding an appeal filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the state high court order setting aside the compulsory retirement given to one of its drivers.
The corporation had introduced provisions of compulsory and voluntary retirement for its employees and a screening Committee was constituted in 2002 to look into the conduct and continuance of four employees who had attained the age of 50 years or had completed 25 years of service.
Next Story
