The Supreme Court has held that a compulsory retirement order cannot be set aside just because the authority relied on adverse entries in the employee’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) that were never communicated to them. The Court dismissed appeals by two Chhattisgarh Legal Metrology Department employees and upheld their compulsory retirement.
A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar affirmed the April 2023 judgments of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had refused to interfere with the retirement orders dated 9 October 2017.
Background
The appellants, Chatur Singh Dhruv and Manharan Lal Sahu, joined the Legal Metrology Department, Raipur, as Peons in 1989 and 1993. They were promoted to Assistant Grade-III in 2012 and 2013, and their services were regularised on 19 June 2015.
On 25 April 2017, the State’s General Administration Department issued a Circular directing a review of employees who had turned 50 or completed 20 years of qualifying service. A Screening Committee examined 14 clerical employees. It converted ACR gradings for 2013 to 2017 into numerical scores and recommended five of them for compulsory retirement, including the two appellants.
Arguments
Kaustubh Shukla, counsel for the appellants, argued that the criteria had not been applied uniformly to similarly situated employees. He said the orders were punitive and stigmatic in substance and had been used to get around disciplinary proceedings. He also argued that the adverse ACR entries were never communicated, relying on Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India. Citing Baikuntha Nath Das, he submitted that the entries lost their significance after the appellants were promoted and regularised.
Rajat Nair, Additional Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, submitted that the review followed the 2017 Circular strictly. He said the Committee applied the same parameters to all 14 employees, and that both appellants fell below the Grade ‘B’ benchmark.
Supreme Court Rules Compulsory Retirement Is Not Punitive
The Court reiterated that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It said judicial review is limited to checking whether relevant material existed and was considered, and whether a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.
On the plea of discrimination, the Court said an employee cannot challenge such an order merely because a comparable officer was not retired. It observed:
“The doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution embodies a positive concept and does not countenance the claim of negative equality.”
The Court also found as a fact that none of the nine retained employees showed the combination of adverse factors found in the appellants’ cases. It held that the parameters had been applied uniformly.
Promotion and Regularisation
The Bench rejected the argument based on promotion. It noted that the 2013 to 2017 ACRs were recorded after both appellants had taken up the promoted post. Chatur Singh Dhruv was graded ‘A’ in 2013 and ‘C’ for the four years that followed. The Court held:
“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.”
On regularisation, it said:
“Regularisation of service in a post already held by an employee does not amount to promotion based on merit or comparative assessment.”
No Stigma, No Circumvention
The Court noted that the retirement orders contained no allegation of misconduct. It held that the Committee’s minutes did not make the orders stigmatic, since internal deliberations do not, by themselves, make the resulting order punitive. It also pointed out that no departmental inquiry was pending or contemplated against either appellant. On that basis, it found the claim that compulsory retirement was used to bypass disciplinary proceedings unsupported by the record.
Uncommunicated Entries
Relying on Baikuntha Nath Das, the Court held that the question is no longer res integra. It said Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh were decided in the context of promotion and career progression, and observed:
“The principles enunciated therein operate in a distinct field and cannot be mechanically extended to cases involving compulsory retirement, which are governed by a separate and well-settled jurisprudence.”
Outcome
The Court found no arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity. It affirmed the High Court’s judgments dated 12 April 2023, dismissed the appeals and made no order as to costs.
Case Title: Chatur Singh Dhruv v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 24392 of 2023 (with Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 25201 of 2023)
Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Date: 6 November 2026
