The Hon’ble Apex Court in re: S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, has held that the subjective satisfaction must be based on adverse material of the incumbent. It was held as under:
“In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299, a bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court was to consider whether uncommunicated adverse remarks would be conisered to order compulsory retirement. The Court considering the scope of Fundamental Rule 56(j) on the anvil of administrative law, held that the order of compulsory retirement has to be passed on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government Servant compulsorily though the order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government, the Government or the Review Committee shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter, of course, attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records, character rolls, both favourable and adverse. The order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed on mere showing that while passing it, uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration. Further, this does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. Though the court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order if mala fide or passed on no evidence or that is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion or the given material, in short, if it is found to be a perverse order, the remedy under Article 226 is an important safeguard, since the remedy is an effective check against arbitrary, mala fide or perverse actions.” Mukhtar Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2018 (3) ESC 1432.
In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Varghese, (2003) 12 SCC 293, observing that recovery after retirement amounts to cut from retiral dues and causes irreparable loss and injury to a retired employee, as retirement dues are the only source of livelihood. Apex Court in the case of Ram Dayal Rai v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, (2005) 3 SCC 501, held that even 5% cut out from the total amount of pension payable to the appellant was an irreparable loss and injury. Court in this case while dealing with a recovery due to overstay in official accommodation, had held:
“If the petitioner’s benefit is cut at 5% out of the total amount of pension payable to the appellant, the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury since, after retirement, the pensionary benefit is the only amount available to eke out a livelihood for the retired employees of the Government.”
Similarly, recovery of an amount from the dues of deceased employee to which his widow is entitled, on the ground that he was paid an excess amount due to wrong fixation of pay cannot be justified after his death. Moreover, in the absence of any finding forthcoming that deceased employee was wrongly benefited for his representation and fraud, no such amount already paid is liable to be recovered. Savitri Pathak v. State of U.P., 2018 (2) AWC 3056.
A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) AWC 810, held as under:
“The distinction between rule of “recruitment” and “condition of service” is no more res integra having already been settled by the Apex court in catena of cases. In State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC 108, the Apex Court held that the term “conditions of service” means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from the time of his appointment till retirement and even pension etc. It was reiterated in I.N. Subbareddy v. State of A.P., (1997) 1 SCC 554. In Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 575, the Apex Court held that where a rule permits relaxation of provisions pertaining to “conditions of service”, the same would be applicable to the condition after appointment to the service in accordance with rules. It also held that “conditions of recruitment” and “conditions of service” are distinct and the latter is preceded by an appointment according to rules, the former cannot be relaxed.”
In a Full Bench Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in A.J. Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1965 Guj 23, with reference to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it was held as under:
“From this Article it is evident that rules relating to the recruitment of persons to public services and posts are distinct from rules relating to the conditions of service. The conditions of service are conditions applicable to persons who have been appointed to public services and posts. The terms and conditions relating to recruitment and relating to appointment to public services and posts must, therefore, be regarded as distinct and different from the conditions of service governing persons on their appointment to public services and posts.” Raj Kumar Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and Others, (2014) 1 UPLBEC 224.