SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has restored the premature retirement of a senior government employee, holding that compulsory retirement in the public interest is an administrative measure and courts should not substitute their assessment for that of the competent authority unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or unsupported by relevant material.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeev Kumar allowed the Jammu and Kashmir Government’s Letters Patent Appeal on September 28, 2026, setting aside a single judge’s order that had quashed the compulsory retirement of Ghulam Mohammad Lone.
The ruling restores Government Order No. 1264-GAD dated November 21, 2016, under which Lone was prematurely retired from government service in terms of Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956.
Lone had served for about 38 years in the School Education Department when a screening committee examined his service record, general reputation and involvement in a vigilance case before recommending his retirement in the public interest.
The court noted that FIR No. 18/2010 had been registered against Lone by the Vigilance Organisation in connection with an allegation that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 9,000.
Lone challenged the government’s decision before the High Court. On October 5, 2018, a single judge quashed the retirement order after finding that the material relied upon by the authorities was insufficient to form a reasonable opinion about his continued utility in service.
The division bench disagreed with that assessment, holding that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited and that the single judge had effectively re-appreciated the material considered by the screening committee.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Baikuntha Nath Das v Chief District Medical Officer, and the division bench’s decision in State v Ahsan-ul-Haq Khan, the bench reiterated that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not carry civil stigma.
The court said the power is intended to enable the administration to retire an employee whose continued retention is considered not to be in the public interest, with the broader objective of maintaining efficiency, integrity and effectiveness in public service.
The bench examined the material considered by the screening committee, including Lone’s Annual Performance Reports for the period from 2011 to 2015. It noted that the reports were graded as average or satisfactory and did not reflect exceptional performance.
The court also held that a pending vigilance inquiry and material raising doubts about an employee’s integrity can form part of the overall assessment undertaken by a screening committee.
The bench found that the committee had considered the relevant material and acted within its statutory authority. It found no legal infirmity, perversity or mala fides in the decision to compulsorily retire Lone.
The division bench accordingly allowed the government’s appeal and restored the November 21, 2016 compulsory retirement order.
