New Delhi, June 27: In a significant judgement having bearing on lakhs of Government servants, the Supreme Court has asked the Government to consider regulation of services of its employees so that only those who render useful service be retained in employment.While ruling that a lower court judge did not have a right to continue in service beyond 58 years of age, the court said "periodical exercise of reviewing or evaluating the utility is required for better administration and for removal of deadwood or persons having doubtful integrity and reputation.""The question which requires consideration by the authorities is - have we not reached a stage where services of government or semi-government employees should be regulated in such a way that only such persons who can render useful service be continued and not the indolent, infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation or utility," a division bench comprising Justice K T Thomas and Justice M B Shah said.This ruling came in a case in which one Ramesh Chandra Acharya, who was appointed as Munsif in 1981 and later promoted to civil judge, challenged his retirement at the age of 58 years by the Orissa Government.He cited the ruling in All India Judges Association case where Supreme Court had held that judicial officers belonging to the State Judicial Service, who, in the opinion of the High Court of Orissa, have a potential for continued useful service, shall be retained in service upto an age of 60 years.Justice M B Shah, writing the judgement for the Bench, said the purpose of increasing the superannuation age for the judicial officers was with an intention to raise the tone and morale of the judicial service as a whole but not to continue the officers who have lost their utility in rendering service to the society.He said the ruling did not straightaway extend the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years but it only enabled the High Court to retain in service a judicial officer belonging to the State Judicial Service upto the age of 60 years, if it was in the opinion that such a judicial officer had potential to continue in useful service.Referring to the assessment of career records, Justice Shah said, "It is open to the competent authority to frame appropriate rules permitting it to assess the overall performance of the officer periodically to find out whether such officer has potential for continued utility in service."Dismissing the appeal filed by Acharya, the Bench said, "continuation beyond 58 years is permissible only when the High Court makes a positive recommendation in favour of that officer for such continuation. Otherwise the judicial officer has to retire at the age of 58 years."
