ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010]
The apex Court in Registrar (Administration), High Court of Orissa,
Cuttack V. Sisir Kanta Satapathy (dead) by L.Rs. & Anr., AIR 1999 SC
3265, held that the High Court itself cannot pass an order compulsorily
retiring a judicial officer without getting formal approval from the Governor
on the recommendations made by the High Court in that regard. This
decision is no way relevant for the present case and, therefore, is of no help
to the opposite parties. The decision of the apex court in State of Gujaratv-Umedbhai
M.Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 is also of no help to the opposite
parties as in the said case the apex Court held that when the service of a
public servant is no longer useful to the general administration, the officer
can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest, and ordinarily, the
order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming
under Article 311 of the Constitution. Any adverse entries made in the
confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in
passing such order. Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a
punitive measure. On the other hand, this decision of the apex court will
help the case of the petitioner wherein it is held that for better
administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-wood, but the order of
compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire
service record of the officer. In the present case, the service record of the
petitioner does not contain any adverse remark against the petitioner. The
facts in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. -v-Vijay Kumar Jain, AIR 2002
SC 1345 is completely different from the case at hand and the principles
decided in that case have no application to the case of the petitioner.
17. So far as payment of scale of pay is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner
was permanently absorbed in the Corporation in the scale of pay of Rs.1600-
2660/- with four advance increments as per Annexures-6 & 7. Annexure-8 is a
clearance by the Director of Horticulture to absorb the petitioner in the
Corporation in the scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660/- The grievance of the petitioner
is that his case was not considered for payment of scale of Rs.1600-2660/- with
effect from the date of joining in the Corporation with four increments, which is
violative of the terms and conditions of the appointment. Annexure-11 is a
representation dated 06.04.2001 made by the petitioner bringing to the notice of
the opposite parties about the revised scale of pay in terms of 65 th resolution of
the meeting of the Board as well as in terms of the order of appointment, but till
date no such financial benefit has been provided to the petitioner. In paragraph-
14 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the matter regarding fixation of pay is
pending with the Corporation awaiting Government clearance for implementation
of the revised scale of pay in respect of Corporation employees and that after
08.10.1996 the petitioner is ceased to be an employee of the Government of
Orissa by exercising necessary option to be absorbed in the Corporation. The
71