Supreme Court refuses to interfere in plea against Allahabad HC order. Officer had challenged forced retirement despite claiming “exemplary” record.
New Delhi: Today, on July 3, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea filed by a judicial officer from Uttar Pradesh, who had challenged the state government’s decision to compulsorily retire him from service.
The top court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had earlier refused to interfere in the matter.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran was hearing the petition filed by the judicial officer, who was initially appointed as a munsif (civil judge – junior division) in March 2001. The state government had ordered his compulsory retirement in November 2021.
The officer had approached the Allahabad High Court against the compulsory retirement decision. However, the High Court dismissed his plea on April 22.
The High Court observed that a screening committee had been formed to examine the service records of judicial officers with the aim to “chop the deadwood.”
After evaluating the officer’s overall service record, the committee recommended his compulsory retirement.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Upholds Premature Compulsory Retirement of a Lower Court Judge
The report of the screening committee was then placed before the full court, which agreed with the recommendation of the committee. Thus, the decision to retire the officer was confirmed by the full court of the High Court.
During the hearing in the Supreme Court, the officer’s counsel argued that the officer had an outstanding track record and deserved to continue in service.
The counsel emphasized that the officer had been promoted during his service and stated,
“The petitioner is not a deadwood.”
In response, the bench remarked,
“Kindly give some credence to the wisdom of the full court.”
Ultimately, the bench stated,
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
As per the records, the officer was serving as a special judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the time he was retired from service. It was also noted that he would have attained the age of superannuation in February 2026, had he continued in service.
Background of the Case
The case concerns a judicial officer from Uttar Pradesh who was appointed as a munsif (civil judge – junior division) in March 2001. In November 2021, the Uttar Pradesh government issued an order for his compulsory retirement based on an assessment of his service record.
This evaluation was carried out by a screening committee constituted to review the performance of judicial officers and identify those considered unfit for continuation in service.
The committee, after examining the officer’s entire service history, recommended his retirement. The recommendation was later accepted by the full court of the Allahabad High Court.
Aggrieved by this, the officer filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the retirement order. However, the High Court dismissed his plea in April 2022, supporting the committee’s recommendation and the full court’s approval.
The officer then approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition, arguing that his service record was exemplary and that he had been promoted during his tenure. He contested being labeled as “deadwood” and sought intervention.
Case Title:
RAMESH KUMAR YADAV vs HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.SLP(C) No. 17129/2025
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Retirement
