Supreme Court upholds compulsory retirement despite reliance on unshared adverse remarks

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by two Chhattisgarh government employees who challenged their compulsory retirement from the Legal Metrology Department. The appellants, promoted from Peon to Assistant Grade-III and later regularised, were retired in 2017 after a state circular directed departments to review the service records of employees who had completed 20 years' service or turned 50, under Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. A Screening Committee evaluated their records and recommended retirement; the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld this, and the appellants approached the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that the Committee's internal assessment carried a stigma, and that adverse entries in their Annual Confidential Reports, never communicated to them, should not have been considered.

The Court rejected both contentions. It held that an order of compulsory retirement is a purely administrative exercise in the public interest, not a disciplinary proceeding, and is not rendered punitive merely because the decision-maker considered uncommunicated adverse remarks, following its earlier ruling in Union of India v. Baikuntha Nath Das. It distinguished promotion-related cases such as Dev Dutt, where communication of adverse entries is required, holding that compulsory retirement is governed by separate, settled jurisprudence. Finding no arbitrariness or mala fide in the exercise, the Court affirmed the retirement orders and dismissed both appeals.