The Supreme Court has reiterated that the government has wide powers to compulsorily retire employees in public interest, observing that such decisions can be taken to maintain administrative efficiency and remove employees whose continued service is considered detrimental to public interest.

The Court observed that assessing an employee's utility, integrity, efficiency and overall service record falls within the domain of the competent authority. An employee cannot challenge an order of compulsory retirement merely on the ground that another government servant with a similar service record was allowed to continue in service.

The Bench further clarified that the constitutional guarantee of equality cannot be invoked to seek similar treatment on the basis of an earlier illegality or omission committed by the authorities.

“If a wrong has been committed in an earlier case, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate a similar wrong in subsequent cases,” the Court observed.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that the power to order compulsory retirement is not absolute and remains subject to judicial scrutiny. Courts can interfere where the decision is based on no evidence, suffers from non-application of mind, is manifestly arbitrary or perverse, or is vitiated by mala fides.

The observations came while dismissing appeals filed by two Chhattisgarh government employees challenging their compulsory retirement.

The Court noted that a screening committee had evaluated 14 employees and recommended five for compulsory retirement, while the remaining nine were considered suitable for continued service.

The assessment was based on several parameters, including honesty, integrity, physical fitness, reputation, efficiency and the employees' overall service records, particularly their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).

The Supreme Court found that the same assessment criteria had been uniformly applied to all 14 employees. It also noted that there was no material to suggest discriminatory treatment or selective application of standards by the authorities.

Further, the Court observed that the overall service records of the two appellants fell below the prescribed benchmark of Grade 'B'. Their confidential reports for the period between 2013 and 2017 consistently reflected low gradings and raised concerns regarding their performance and efficiency.

Accordingly, the Court found no ground to interfere with the compulsory retirement orders and dismissed the appeals.