Compulsory retirement cannot be invalidated merely because the authority considered adverse entries that were not communicated to the employee, the Supreme Court has reiterated. Upholding the retirement of two Chhattisgarh employees, it distinguished this review of suitability for continued service from decisions about promotion and career progression.
New Delhi: Adverse entries that were never communicated to an employee can still be weighed when the authority reviews whether that employee should continue in service. The Supreme Court has upheld orders compulsorily retiring two employees of Chhattisgarh’s Legal Metrology Department, finding that their complete service records were assessed under uniformly applied standards [Chatur Singh Dhruw v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others, with a connected appeal].
Justices Manmohan and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the appeals on November 6, 2026. The bench affirmed the Chhattisgarh High Court’s April 12, 2023 judgments and found no arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or breach of a constitutional or statutory guarantee.
Promotion cases involve a different question
In paragraphs 48 and 49, the Court rejected the objection based solely on non-communication of the adverse entries. Relying on the settled compulsory-retirement principles in Baikuntha Nath Das, it held that taking uncommunicated remarks into account does not, by itself, justify quashing the order.
The employees had invoked Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh, concerning communication of annual confidential report entries. The bench distinguished those decisions as addressing promotion, career progression and entries affecting promotional prospects. Their principles could not be mechanically transferred to compulsory-retirement reviews.
The judgment nevertheless preserves judicial scrutiny. An authority’s assessment must rest on relevant, objective material, not whim. Courts can interfere where there is no evidence, non-application of mind, manifest arbitrariness, perversity or mala fides, and can examine whether the employer followed the standards it prescribed.
What the employees challenged
The employees had entered service as peons and were later promoted to Assistant Grade-III. Their services in the posts were regularised in 2015. They challenged the October 9, 2017 retirement orders issued after a review under Fundamental Rule 56, the applicable pension rules and a State circular.
They argued that the exercise was selective, that adverse entries had not been communicated, and that the authorities had not fairly assessed their entire careers. They also said the action was punitive in substance and bypassed disciplinary safeguards. Their earlier promotions and regularisation, they contended, reduced the relevance of adverse material.
The record showed a uniform review
The screening committee examined 14 eligible clerical employees and recommended retirement for five. The Court found that the entire service record was assessed first, with the preceding five years’ reports used as an additional check on declining performance. Those recent reports were not the sole basis of the exercise.
On the record before it, the bench found sustained low gradings and adverse assessments relevant to the appellants’ efficiency and suitability. It rejected the allegation that different criteria had been used to retain other employees. It also explained that another employee’s retention does not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise lawful retirement order.
Earlier promotion did not erase later performance
The adverse material at issue concerned performance after promotion. The Court held that an earlier promotion could not neutralise entries subsequently recorded in the promoted post. Regularisation likewise conferred substantive status in an existing post; it was not a fresh merit-based promotion or an assurance of future suitability.
The retirement orders themselves did not record misconduct or culpability. The committee’s internal assessments did not, on these facts, turn the administrative review into a disciplinary finding. No departmental inquiry was pending or contemplated against either appellant, and the allegation that retirement had been used to evade such proceedings was unsupported.
The ruling thus upholds these public-interest retirement orders while retaining the requirement of a bona fide, evidence-based review under the applicable service rules.
Case: Chatur Singh Dhruw v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others, with connected appeal
Proceedings: Civil appeals arising from SLP(C) Nos.24392/2023 and 25201/2023
Citation: 2026 INSC 1205
Bench: Justices Manmohan and Shree Chandrashekhar
Date: November 6, 2026
Outcome: Appeals dismissed; compulsory-retirement orders upheld.