I.N.SAKSENA vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The Supreme Court addressed the legality of a compulsory retirement order issued to a District and Sessions Judge under a Madhya Pradesh Government memorandum. The Court held that the absence of express words of stigma in the retirement order meant that Article 311 of the Constitution was not applicable, thus the retirement did not constitute a removal. The Court also distinguished previous cases, confirming that the memorandum did not qualify as a rule under Article 309, and the appellant was not entitled to retire in August 1963 as per the amended rules.