[2025:RJ-JP:32315] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8012/2004 Om Prakash Sharma S/o Hemraj ji Sharma, aged about 52 years, R/o H.No.112/10, behind excise, Ganesh Nagar, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Via Managing Director, Transport Road Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, Ajaymeru Agar, Ajmer. 3. General Manager (Operations) Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation Ajmer Zone, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deendayal Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/08/2025 1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.10.2004 (Annex-18) issued by the Managing Director (RSRTC) whereby in exercise of powers under Rule 18D(1) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employee Standing Orders, 1965 (for short standing order of 1965), the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was initially appointed on 09.01.1977 in respondent-Corporation and had completed more than 27 years of service with the respondent-Corporation. He rendered his services with due honesty and dedication and also received appreciation certificates. [2025:RJ-JP:32315] (2 of 6) [CW-8012/2004] 3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was deprived of benefit of selection grade on completion of 9/18/27 years of services, whereas such benefits were given to other employees, hence, the petitioner submitted a representation before the authorities for granting him benefit of selection grade. 4. It was also submitted that the petitioner was ignored while promoting the others as Junior Engineer 'A' hence, in this regard also, the petitioner represented before the competent authority. At the one hand, the petitioner was not granted the benefits otherwise due, on the other hand order dated 18.10.2004 has been passed for retiring the petitioner compulsorily. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of compulsorily retirement has been issued without following the due procedure and without objectively considering the service record of the petitioner. No opportunity of hearing whatsoever was given to the petitioner prior to issuing the impugned order hence, the same being arbitrary and illegal is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that record of the petitioner was properly screened by the duly constituted committee and it was found that as many as 7 penalties were given to the petitioner from time to time. It was also submitted that on account of different penalties earlier imposed upon the petitioner, as per rules he was neither eligible for promotion nor for selection grade, hence, the allegation that only on account of demanding promotion or selection grade, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired vide impugned order is [2025:RJ-JP:32315] (3 of 6) [CW-8012/2004] totally misconceived and unfounded. It has been submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is neither stigmatic nor requires any opportunity of hearing prior to passing the same. Petitioner has not leveled any allegation of malafides against any other officer hence, under these circumstances where the impugned order has been passed in accordance with rules, no interference is called for in the writ petition and same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by counsels for the parties and examined the record. It is a settled proposition of law that the employer, as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules, is well within its rights to screen the service record of the employees and in the interest of better administration, provision for weeding out ineffective and incompetent employees has been made. 8. It is also settled that it is a subjective satisfaction of the employer arrived at on the basis of record, while considering the cases of compulsory retirement. In the instant case, as per reply there were 7 penalties in the service record of the petitioner which was imposed upon him in regular interval. Under these circumstances, where entire record of the employee can be taken into consideration, I do not find any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. Recently, Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mool Chand Jadam Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.806/2022) decided on 02.05.2025 has held as under:- 13. Apart from above, it has also been recorded by the writ Court that in addition to aforesaid 19 penalties, [2025:RJ-JP:32315] (4 of 6) [CW-8012/2004] appellant was also having adverse entries in his APARs for the year 1988-89 19. We would like to refer that in the case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “28. We now proceed to consider the second order passed by the High Court for recommending the case of the Appellant to the State Government to accept and issue appropriate notification to compulsorily retire the Appellant from Judicial Service. It is now well settled that the object of compulsory retirement from service is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and honesty and to keep the judicial service unpolluted. Keeping this object in view, the contention of the Appellant has to be appreciated on the basis of the settled law on the subject of Compulsory retirement. 29. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer MANU/SC/0193/1992:(1992) 2 SCC 299, three Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the principles regarding the Order of Compulsory retirement in public interest: 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii)The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is arbitrary- in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (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 favorable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more [2025:RJ-JP:32315] (5 of 6) [CW-8012/2004] so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) 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 for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above. 30. “28. In... Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0105/1999: (1999) 3 SCC 396, this Court was considering the order of compulsory retirement of the Appellant, who was a Member of the Superior Judicial Service in the State of Bihar. On a writ petition filed by the Appellant in the High Court, challenging his order of compulsory retirement by the Full Court of the High Court, the High Court on the judicial side refused to interfere and dismissed the petition. The Appellant came in appeal before this Court. This Court found that while on various earlier occasions remarks were given by the High Court but there were no entries in the character roll of the Appellant for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993- 94. The entries for these years were recorded at one time simultaneously and the Appellant was categorized as 'C' Grade officer. The date on which these entries were made was not indicated either in the original record or in the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent. These were communicated to the Appellant on 29-11-1996 and were considered by the Full Court on 30-11-1996. It was clear that these entries were recorded at a stage when the Standing Committee had already made up its mind to compulsorily retire the Appellant from service as it had directed the office on 6-11-1996 to put up a note for compulsory retirement of the Appellant. This Court held that it was a case where there was no material on the basis of which an opinion could have been reasonably formed that it would be in the public interest to retire the Appellant from service prematurely. This Court was of the opinion that the entries recorded "at one go" for three years, namely 1991-92, 1992-93 and1993-94 could hardly have been taken into consideration. The Court then referred to its earlier decision in Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah MANU/SC/0411/1988 : (1988) 3 SCC 211, where this Court said that the High Court in its administrative jurisdiction has the power to recommend compulsory retirement of the Member of the judicial service in accordance with the rules framed in that regard but it cannot act arbitrarily and there has to be material to come to a decision to compulsorily retire the officer. In that case it was also pointed out that the High Court while exercising its [2025:RJ-JP:32315] (6 of 6) [CW-8012/2004] power of control over the subordinate judiciary is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers from being harassed or annoyed by trifling complaints relating to judicial orders so that the officers may discharge their duties honestly and independently; unconcerned by the ill- conceived or motivated complaints made by unscrupulous lawyers and litigants. 31. We are conscious of the fact that there is very limited scope of judicial review of an order of premature retirement from service. As observed by this Court in Rajiah's case (supra) that “21….when the High Court takes the view that an order of compulsory retirement should be made against a member of the Judicial Service, the adequacy or sufficiency of such materials cannot be questioned, unless the materials are absolutely irrelevant to the purpose of compulsory retirement.” 32. We also add that when an order of compulsory retirement is challenged in a court of law, the Court has the right to examine whether some ground or material germane to the issue exists or not. Although, the Court is not interested in the sufficiency of the material upon which the order of compulsory retirement rests.” 22. By now it is also well settled that a decision of compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the government, which is derived on the basis of entire service record of concerned employee. 23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, after having a glance over large number of penalties and adverse entries in service record of the appellant, we are satisfied that the State Government has rightly taken a decision in public interest to retire the appellant at a premature stage." 9. In the light of aforesaid discussion and after analysing the record of the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/72