The Supreme Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of former Indian Trade Service officer S.S. Das, holding that the decision to retire him under Fundamental Rule 56(j) was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court found a serious contradiction between his consistently strong service record, his promotion as Joint Secretary just months before retirement, and the later decision branding his continuation in service against public interest.
The judgment was delivered on September 9, 2026, by a Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Dipankar Datta in S.S. Das v. Union of India.
Background of the Case
S.S. Das joined the Indian Trade Service in 1989 and held several senior positions during his career. He was promoted to the Senior Administrative Grade in November 2017 and his promotion was regularised as Joint Secretary in February 2018. Barely two months later, on May 10, 2018, he was compulsorily retired under FR 56(j), nearly five years before his normal superannuation.
The authorities relied principally on certain remarks in his service record and a confidential note concerning his functioning in the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping. The note referred to an alleged unprofessional approach and allegations of demands for favours, while also acknowledging that there was no supporting evidence or written complaint.
The Central Administrative Tribunal and later the Delhi High Court upheld the retirement order, following which Das approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court closely examined his service records. It noted that Das had repeatedly received Outstanding or Very Good assessments and generally scored above 8 out of 10 in later APARs. His promotion to Joint Secretary, based on the UPSC recommendation and ACC approval, came only a short time before his compulsory retirement.
The Bench clarified that a previous adverse entry does not automatically disappear after promotion. However, the entire service record must be assessed, with appropriate weight given to the officer’s recent performance.
“The past must be posted in the prism of the entire service record, with appropriate accord being ascribed to the immediate past.”
The Court found that the Review Committee had selectively relied on earlier material while failing to properly consider Das’ recent record and promotion. It also questioned reliance on the 1998-99 entry, where complaints were recorded but expressly found to have no substance, and the 2014-15 remark that there was “room for improvement” despite an overall score of 8.75.
The Court further held that the confidential note, which formed a significant basis for the retirement decision, lacked sufficient credibility to sustain the action.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the compulsory retirement order was affected by arbitrariness, perversity and malice in law. It set aside the Delhi High Court judgment, the CAT order and the May 10, 2018 compulsory retirement order.
As Das had already reached the age of superannuation, the Court said physical reinstatement was no longer possible. It instead directed that he receive all service benefits he would have earned had the compulsory retirement order not been passed, including notional promotion where applicable.
The Court also awarded ₹6 lakh as costs and ₹9 lakh as compensation for loss of reputation, directing payment within three months.
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
