In the instant case, the Appellant had not been retired by the appointing authority, namely, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant had retired on the completion of age of 58 years. Instead of quashing the notification at Annexure P-16, the Division Bench treated the said notification as recommendation of the High Court to the Governor for removal of the services of the Appellant. This order was passed after the Appellant had completed the age of 60 years. In terms of the order of the Division Bench, the Governor has passed an order dated 31.1.2017 retrospectively retiring the Appellant with effect from 31.7.2005, which, in our view, is not permissible in law. The Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 do not provide for retrospectively retiring the judicial officers. The order of the High Court retiring the Appellant at the age of 58 years cannot take effect as it was without authority of law. It only means that the Appellant has to be treated to have been retired from service on completion of 60 years of age on 31.7.2007.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 10244 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13525/2016)
Decided On: 08.08.2017
P.D. Goel Vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Jasti Chelameswar and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Citation: (2017) 16 SCC 390
