Plea To Substitute Order Of 'Compulsory' Retirement With 'Voluntary' Doesn't Require Adjudication On Merits: Madras HC Grants Relief To Retd Judge

The Madras High Court recently allowed the plea filed by a former District Judge seeking to amend an order for compulsory retirement as that of voluntary retirement. 

The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the issue did not require adjudication on merits. The court observed as below:

We do not find the prayer of the petitioner of such nature which cannot be considered or accepted. The prayer is to accept the application for voluntary retirement from the date he was given compulsory retirement. It is not in dispute that the retiral benefits arising out of the compulsory retirement or voluntary retirement would be the same and the petitioner is not claiming any additional benefits. In view of the above and looking at the facts of the case and as an exception, the prayer of the petitioner to substitute the order of compulsory retirement to that of voluntary retirement is accepted. The petitioner would be treated to have voluntarily retired from the date of the order of compulsory retirement.

In the present case, the petitioner was subjected to an order of compulsory retirement as per the decision of the Administrative Committee, upon attaining the age of 55 years and on the basis of only one remark of "below average". This decision was confirmed by the Full Court. A day after the decision was confirmed by the Full Court, the petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement. The same was not accepted by the then Chief Justice as it would be going against the resolution of the Full Court.

Senior Advocate ARL Sunderesan for Advocate KM Mrithunjayan submitted that the order for compulsory retirement is a stigma given its nature and application in general. In any case, the petitioner does not intend to challenge the order but is asking to substitute the order of compulsory retirement with the order of voluntary retirement. The petitioner sent representations to permit him to voluntarily retire before issuing of the order impugned herein

Case No: WP No. 8852 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 270

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr. K. M. Mrithunjayan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Muthukumar State Govt Pleader (R1) and Mr.M.Santhanaraman (R2)