Uncommunicated Adverse Entries Or Below-Benchmark Gradings May Be Considered For Ascertaining Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgments passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which affirmed the judgments rendered by the Single Judge declining to interfere with the orders whereby the appellants were compulsorily retired from service.

The Division Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held, “Uncommunicated adverse entries or below-benchmark gradings may be taken into account for the purposes of compulsory retirement. The submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants that adverse entries and below-benchmark gradings recorded in their Annual Confidential Reports could not have been relied upon since such entries had not been communicated to them is equally devoid of merit.The issue is no longer res integra. In Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), this Court authoritatively held that an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be interfered with merely because the competent authority, while arriving at its opinion, took into consideration uncommunicated adverse remarks. The Court expressly observed that ‘an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it, uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis of interference…’. The contention of the Appellants, therefore, runs contrary to the settled legal position governing compulsory retirement.”

Advocate Kaustubh Shukla represented the Appellant while Additional Advocate General Rajat Nair represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Appellants were initially appointed as Peons (Class-IV) in the Legal Metrology Department (Weights and Measures Department), Raipur, in the years 1989 and 1993, respectively. In due course, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III in 2012 and 2013. Thereafter, their services were regularized by separate orders. In 2017, the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, issued a Circular addressed to all Departments of the State Government directing them to undertake a review of service records and to consider the case of such Government servants who fulfilled the parameters prescribed for compulsory retirement. Pursuant to the Circular dated April 25, 2017, separate orders dated 09th October 2017 were issued whereby the Appellants were compulsorily retired from service.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reiterated that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character. “Such an order does not cast any aspersion upon the conduct of the employee nor does it imply any finding of misconduct. “Consequently, the rule of audi alteram partem, as well as the protection afforded under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, have no application to an order of compulsory retirement made in accordance with the relevant service rules”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the recommendations made by the Screening Committee were founded upon an objective evaluation of the utility, efficiency and suitability of the employees concerned, with a view to maintaining administrative standards and ensuring efficiency in public service. “The exercise was not intended to punish or penalise the Appellants. The materials on record disclose that all eligible employees, including the Appellants, were subjected to the same process of review and evaluation, without any deviation from or relaxation of or departure from the parameters prescribed under the Circular”, it stated.

The Bench thus concluded that the parameters and standards applied while considering the cases of the Appellants for compulsory retirement were uniformly applied to all similarly situated employees and no element of discriminatory treatment or selective application of criteria was established.

The Bench further observed that after the application of requisite parameters uniformly and comprehensively to all eligible employees, the Screening Committee identified 5 employees, including the Appellants, whose overall service-record assessment fell below the prescribed benchmark and whose recent Confidential Reports disclosed patterns indicative of unsatisfactory performance, declining efficiency or lack of utility in public service. It noted that the remaining 9 employees, having satisfied the prescribed standards, were found fit for continued retention in service.

“This Court is unable to accept the contention that the promotion of the Appellants rendered the subsequent adverse material irrelevant for the purposes of compulsory retirement. The principle that adverse entries lose their significance upon promotion of an employee to a higher post is confined to those entries which pre-date the promotion and are deemed to have been overlooked by the employer while conferring such promotion. That principle cannot be extended to obliterate or neutralise entries recorded after promotion, which relate to the employee’s performance in the promoted post itself”, it added.

The Bench thus held that the process culminating in the compulsory retirement of the Appellants was undertaken in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the Circular and the prescribed parameters were uniformly applied. Holding that the decision of the competent authority was founded upon relevant and cogent materials and no case of arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or violation of any constitutional or statutory guarantee was made out, the Bench dismissed the appeals.

Cause Title: Chatur Singh Dhruw v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1205)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Kaustubh Shukla, Shivam Shukla, AOR Neelam Singh, Advocates Yashwardhan Rai, Vipul Kumar, Pushpanjali Singh, Gursmirat Kaur

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Rajat Nair, Advocates Prerna Dhall, Ambuj Swaroop, Shashi Kant, Avinash Singh, Prashant Singh

Click here to read/download Order