advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Service matter - post retirement benefits to retired high court judges - A.P. State Govt. passed a G.O. - By G.O.Ms.No. 28 dated 16.03.2012 issued by Law Department,Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount of Rs.14,000/- per month to the retired Chief Justices of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the retired Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for defraying the services of an orderly, driver, security guard etc. and for meeting expenses incurred towards secretarial assistance on contract basis and a residential telephone free of cost with number of free calls to the extent of 1500 per month over and above the number of free calls per month allowed by the telephone authorities to both the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.04.2012.= P. Ramakrishnam Raju .... Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent(s) = 2014 (March. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41365

Service matter - post retirement benefits to retired high court judges -  A.P. State Govt. passed a G.O. - By G.O.Ms.No. 28 dated 16.03.2012 issued  by  Law  Department,Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount of Rs.14,000/-  per  month to the retired Chief Justices of the High Court of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the retired Judges of the High  Court  of Andhra Pradesh for defraying the services of an  orderly,  driver,  security guard etc. and for meeting expenses incurred towards secretarial  assistance on contract basis and a residential telephone free of cost  with  number  of free calls to the extent of 1500 per month over  and  above  the  number  of free calls per month allowed  by  the  telephone  authorities  to  both  the retired Chief Justices and Judges  of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh w.e.f. 01.04.2012.=

whether  High
Court Judges, who are appointed from the Bar under Article 217(2)(b) of  the
Constitution of India, on retirement, are entitled for  an  addition  of  10
years to their service for the purposes of their pension? =

With reference to the above claim and the order of the High Court,  in
the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief  Justices  of  the  High  Courts
held on 18.09.2004, the following Resolution was passed:

      “18. Augmenting of post-retiral benefits of Judges.

      Xxx xxxxx

      [vi] As regards post-retiral benefits to the  retired  Judges  of  the
      High Courts, the scheme sanctioned by the State of Andhra  Pradesh  be
      adopted and followed in all the States, except where  better  benefits
      are already available.”

33)   It is brought to our notice that in pursuance of the said  Resolution,
most of the  States  in  the  country  have  extended  various  post-retiral
benefits to the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the  respective
High Courts.  By G.O.Ms.No. 28 dated 16.03.2012 issued  by  Law  Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount of Rs.14,000/-  per  month
to the retired Chief Justices of the High Court of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  an
amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the retired Judges of the High  Court  of
Andhra Pradesh for defraying the services of an  orderly,  driver,  security
guard etc. and for meeting expenses incurred towards secretarial  assistance
on contract basis and a residential telephone free of cost  with  number  of
free calls to the extent of 1500 per month over  and  above  the  number  of
free calls per month allowed  by  the  telephone  authorities  to  both  the
retired Chief Justices and Judges  of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh
w.e.f. 01.04.2012.

34)   While appreciating  the  steps  taken  by  the  Government  of  Andhra
Pradesh and other States who have already formulated such  scheme,  by  this
order, we hope and trust that the States who have not  so  far  framed  such
scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local conditions,  for  the
benefit of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of  the  respective
High Courts as early as possible preferably within a period  of  six  months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

35)   All the Writ Petitions and the appeals are disposed of  on  the  above
terms. In view of  the  disposal  of  the  writ  petitions,  no  orders  are
required in the intervention application.
2014 (March. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41365  
P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA

                                REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION


                   1 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 521 OF 2002



P. Ramakrishnam Raju                             .... Petitioner (s)

            Versus

Union of India & Ors.                                    .... Respondent(s)

                                      2


                                   3 WITH


4


                   5 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 523 OF 2002


                   6 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 524 OF 2002


                   7 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 37 OF 2003


                   8 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38 OF 2003


                   9 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 465 OF 2005


                                   10 AND



                    11 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4248-4249 OF 2014

             (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9558-9559 of 2010)






                               J U D G M E N T


P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1)    The main question which  arises  for  consideration  is  whether  High
Court Judges, who are appointed from the Bar under Article 217(2)(b) of  the
Constitution of India, on retirement, are entitled for  an  addition  of  10
years to their service for the purposes of their pension?

2)    The above petitions have been filed by former Judges  of  the  various
High Courts of the country as well as by  the  Association  of  the  Retired
Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts elevated from the Bar.

3)    The petitioners have prayed that the number of years practiced  as  an
advocate shall be taken into account and shall be added to the service as  a
Judge of the High Court for the purpose of determining the  maximum  pension
permissible under Part-I of the First Schedule  to  the  High  Court  Judges
(Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (in  short  ‘the  HCJ  Act’).
It was further stated that in respect of Part-III  of  the  First  Schedule,
which deals with the  Judges  elevated  from  the  State  Judicial  Service,
almost all the Judges get full pension even if they have worked as  a  Judge
of the High Court for 2 or 3 years and their  entire  service  is  added  to
their service as a Judge of the High Court for computing pension under  this
Part.  For this reason, the members of the subordinate  judiciary  get  more
pension than the Judges elevated from the Bar on retirement.

4)    In view of the above, the petitioners prayed that  though  Part-I  and
Part-III Judges hold equivalent posts, they are not  similarly  situated  in
regard to pension and retirement benefits which is  breach  of  Articles  14
and 21 of the Constitution of India and one rank one  pension  must  be  the
norm in respect of a constitutional office.   It is further prayed that  the
retired Judges of the High Courts should also be  given  enhanced  allowance
for domestic help/peon/driver,  telephone  expenses  and  other  secretarial
assistance.

5)    We have heard the  arguments  advanced  by  learned  counsel  for  the
parties and perused the records.

6)    The Constitution of India provides  for  three-tier  judicial  system.
The Union Judiciary-Establishment  and  Constitution  of  Supreme  Court  of
India (Articles 124 to 147); The High Courts in the States (Articles 214  to
231) and Subordinate Courts (Article  233  to  237).   The  Constitution  of
India also provides for appointment of Judges from amongst  the  members  of
the Bar at all the three levels.

7)    The appointment of the Judges of the  Supreme  Court  is  governed  by
Article  124(3),(a),  (b)  and  (c)  of  the  Constitution.   It   envisages
appointment from three sources: (i) from amongst  the  Judges  of  the  High
Court having service of at least five years; (ii) the  members  of  the  Bar
having a standing of not less than 10 years; and (iii) any person,  who  is,
in the opinion of the President, is a distinguished jurist.

8)    The appointment of a Judge of the High Court is  governed  by  Article
217(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution which envisages appointments from  two
different sources: (a) from amongst the Judicial officers who have held  the
office for at least 10 years; and (b) the members of the Bar, who have  been
Advocates of a High Court for at least 10 years.

9)    The appointment of District Judges is governed by  Article  233(2)  of
the Constitution which provides that a person not already in the service  of
the Union or of the State shall only  be  eligible  to  be  appointed  as  a
district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an  advocate  or
a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.

10)   The Supreme Court Judges  (Salaries  &  Conditions  of  Service)  Act,
1958, (in short ‘the SCJ Act’), the HCJ Act and the Rules  made  thereunder,
regulate their salary and conditions of service.  The provisions under  both
the Acts were similar  prior  to  the  Amendment  Act,  2005.   The  service
conditions of the Judges of the  subordinate  courts  are  governed  by  the
Service Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
11)   Section 13 of the SCJ  Act  read  with  Clause  2  of  Part-I  of  the
Schedule deals with the  pension  payable  to  the  retired  Judges  of  the
Supreme Court.  Similarly, Section 14 of the HCJ Act read with Clause  2  of
Part-I of the First Schedule deals with the pension payable to  the  retired
Judges of the High Courts.  The provisions under both the Acts were  similar
prior to the Amendment Act, 2005.  Relevant portion of  Section  14  of  the
HCJ Act reads as follows:

      “14.  Pension payable to Judges.- Subject to the  provisions  of  this
      Act, every Judge shall, on  his  retirement,  be  paid  a  pension  in
      accordance with the scale and  provisions  in  Part  1  of  the  First
      Schedule:

      Provided that no such pension shall be payable to a Judge unless-

      a) he has completed not less than twelve years of service for pension;
         or

      b) he has attained the age of sixty-two years; or

      c) his retirement is medically certified to be  necessitated  by  ill-
         health;”

12)   Clause 2 of Part-I to the First Schedule of the said  Act  deals  with
the pension for the retired Judges of  the  High  Court,  who  are  directly
appointed from the Bar, which reads as under:-

      “2. Subject to the other provisions of this part, the pension  payable
      to a Judge, to whom this part apply and who  has  completed  not  less
      than 7 years of service for pension shall be

      (a)   for service as Chief Justice in any High Court, Rs.43,890/-  per
      annum for each completed year of service; (b) for service as any other
      Judge in any High Court Rs.34,350/- per annum for each completed  year
      of service.

      Provided that the pension under this paragraph shall in no case exceed
      Rs.5,40,000/- per annum in the case of Chief Justice and Rs.4,80,000/-
      per annum in case of any other Judges.”

13)   The above-noted Clause (2) of Part I of  the  First  Schedule  implies
that no pension is payable to  the  Judges  having  less  than  7  years  of
service as a Judge.  The above Section further shows that  for  a  Judge  of
the High Court to receive full pension benefits, he  should  have  completed
12 years of service as a Judge of the High  Court.   It  is  submitted  that
when members of the Bar are offered the post of High Court Judges, they  are
generally at the age of about 50 years or above and at the  prime  of  their
practice, which they have to give up to serve the system.   Therefore,  many
of them are reluctant to accept the offer as  the  post-retirement  benefits
are not attractive enough.
14)   Section 13 and Clause 2 of  the  Schedule  to  the  SCJ  Act   earlier
contained similar prohibition with regard to the eligibility of  pension  to
the Judges appointed from the Bar as contained in the  HCJ  Act.   Both  the
Acts provide that no pension shall be payable to a Judge who has  less  than
7 years of service.

15)   In Kuldip Singh vs. Union of India, (2002) 9 SCC 218,  the  petitioner
therein, who was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court from the Bar,  on
his retirement was denied the benefit of pension as he did not  fulfill  the
requisite conditions.  Consequently, he filed a Writ  Petition  before  this
Court praying, inter alia, (a) to take into account 10 years of practice  at
the Bar in addition to his service for the purposes of pension.  (b) In  the
alternative, prayed for a direction to treat the  appointees  under  Article
124(3)(b) for the purposes of pension  at  par  with  the  appointees  under
Article 124(3)(a).  On 24.09.2002, while issuing notice, this  Court  passed
the following order:-

      “1. In this writ petition, the question which arises for consideration
      relates to pension which is payable to a Judge who retires  from  this
      Court after having been  appointed  directly  from  the  Bar.  Similar
      question also arises with regard to Bar appointees to the High Courts.


      2. Experience has shown that the Bar appointees  especially,  if  they
      are appointed at the age of 50 years and  above,  get  lesser  pension
      than the Service Judge appointees. It is to be seen that as far as the
      Constitution of India  is  concerned,  it  stipulates  the  manner  of
      appointment of the Judges and provides  what  may  be  termed  as  the
      qualification  required  for  their  appointment.   The   Constitution
      contemplates appointment to the High Courts from  amongst  members  of
      the  Bar  as  well  as  from  amongst  the  judicial   officers.   The
      Constitution does not provide for any specific quota. Till a few years
      ago in practice 66 2/3% of vacancies were filled from amongst  members
      of the Bar and 33 1/3% from the judicial services. It is only  in  the
      Conference of 4-12-1993 of the Chief Ministers and the Chief  Justices
      that it was decided that the number  of  vacancies  from  amongst  the
      judicial officers “might go up to 40%”.  The  decision  of  4-12-1993,
      cannot mean that the number of Judges from the services has to be 40%.
      The normal practice which has been followed was 2/3rds and 1/3rd  from
      amongst members of the Bar and judicial services respectively  and  it
      is only on a rare occasion that the Chief Justice of a High Court  can
      propose more Service Judges being appointed if suitable members of the
      Bar are not available. But this cannot be more than 40% in  any  case.
      It may here also be noted that in the Chief Justices’ Conference  held
      in 1999, it was unanimously resolved that the quota should normally be
      66 2/3% and 33 1/3% and it is on  this  basis  the  Government  should
      determine the likely number of Bar Judges and  then  consider  whether
      the High Court Judges who are appointed from amongst  the  members  of
      the Bar should not be given the same weightage as is now sought to  be
      given to the members of the Bar who are appointed to this Court as far
      as pension is concerned.”
                                             (Emphasis supplied)


16)   The Government, vide Amendment Act, 2005 (46/2005), added Section  13A
to the SCJ Act which reads as under:

      “Subject to the provision of this Act, a period of ten years shall  be
      added to the service of a Judge for the purpose of  his  pension,  who
      qualified for appointment as such Judge under sub-clause (b) of Clause
      (3) of Article 124 of the Constitution.”

Therefore, the condition of minimum 7 years of service as a Judge to  become
eligible for pension was omitted from the Section as well as from  Clause  2
of its Schedule.  In view of the  amendment,  the  said  writ  petition  was
dismissed as withdrawn on 06.12.2005.  However, petitioner’s  writ  petition
and other connected matters remained pending.

17)   In Govt. of  NCT  of  Delhi  &  Ors.  vs.  All  India  Young  Lawyers’
Association  (Registered)  And  Another,  (2009)  14  SCC  49,  a   Lawyers’
Association filed a writ  petition  in  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  praying
therein that the benefit of 15 years addition of service  be  given  to  the
Judge, who is directly  appointed  from  the  Bar  to  the  Higher  Judicial
Service for the purposes of pension.  The  writ  petition  was  allowed  and
Rule 26B was ordered to be  added  to  the  Delhi  Higher  Judicial  Service
Rules, 1970.  The Govt. of NCT,  Delhi  challenged  the  said  judgment  and
order and this Court upheld the validity of Rule 26B,  however,  the  period
to be added to the service for the purposes of pension, was  reduced  to  10
years or actual practice at the Bar whichever is less.

18)   In the  three-tier  judicial  system  provided  by  the  Constitution,
members of the Bar, who join the Higher Judicial  Service  at  the  District
Judges level, on retirement, get the benefit of 10 years addition  to  their
service for the purposes of pension (Rule 26B of the  DHJS  Rules).   Judges
of the Supreme Court, who are appointed from the Bar given a  period  of  10
years to their service for the purposes  of  pension  (Section  13A  of  the
Amendment Act, 2005).  However, the benefit of 10 years  addition  to  their
service for the purposes of pension is being denied to  the  Judges  of  the
High court appointed from the Bar,  which  is  arbitrary  and  violative  of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

19)   The Explanation (aa) appended to Article 217(2)  of  the  Constitution
of India envisages that, “in computing the period during which a person  has
been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period  during
which the person has held judicial office or the office of  a  member  of  a
tribunal or any  post,  under  the  Union  or  a  State,  requiring  special
knowledge of law after he became an advocate.”  The explanation thus  treats
the experience of an Advocate at the Bar and the period of  judicial  office
held by him at par.

20)   The Judges, who are appointed under Article  217(2)(a)  being  members
of the Judicial Service, even if they serve as a Judge  of  the  High  Court
for only one or  two  years,  get  full  pension  benefits  because  of  the
applicability of Rule 26B or because of their earlier  entry  into  judicial
service.  However, the Judges of the High Court, who are appointed from  the
Bar do not get similar benefit of  full  pension,  which  is  arbitrary  and
discriminatory.
21)   Section 14 of the HCJ Act  and  Clause  2  of  Part  I  of  the  First
Schedule which governs the pension payable to Judges gives rise  to  unequal
consequences.  The existing scheme treats unequally  the  equals,  which  is
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

22)   To remove the above discrimination, in the Chief  Justices  Conference
held on April 5 and 6,  2013,  it  was,  inter  alia,  resolved  that,  “for
pensionary benefits, ten years’ practice  as  an  advocate  be  added  as  a
qualifying service, for Judges elevated from  the  Bar.”  (Resolution  No.18
(viii).  It fully supports the petitioner’s submission.

23)   The ratio of the decision cited by the respondent in  Union  of  India
vs. Devki Nandan Agarwal, AIR 1992 SC 196  is  not  applicable  because  the
reliefs prayed therein were entirely different and also because  it  is  per
incuriam in view  of  the  subsequent  decisions  of  this  Court  of  equal
strength in All India Judges Association vs. Union of  India,  AIR  1992  SC
165; and All India Judges Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1993  SC  2493
wherein  the  requirement  of  independence  of  the  judiciary  have   been
underlined as also two decisions cited above i.e. Kuldip Singh  (supra)  and
All India Young Lawyers’ Association (supra).

24)   When persons who occupied the Constitutional  Office  of  Judge,  High
Court retire, there should not be any  discrimination  with  regard  to  the
fixation of their pension.   Irrespective  of  the  source  from  where  the
Judges are drawn, they must be paid the same pension just as they have  been
paid same salaries  and  allowances  and  perks  as  serving  Judges.   Only
practicing Advocates who  have  attained  eminence  are  invited  to  accept
Judgeship of the High Court.  Because of the status of the  office  of  High
Court Judge, the responsibilities and duties attached to the office,  hardly
any advocate of distinction declines the offer.  Though it may  be  a  great
financial sacrifice to a successful lawyer to accept Judgeship,  it  is  the
desire to serve the society and the high prestige  attached  to  the  office
and the respect the office commands  that  propel  a  successful  lawyer  to
accept Judgeship.  The experience  and  knowledge  gained  by  a  successful
lawyer at the Bar can never be considered to  be  less  important  from  any
point of view vis-a-vis the experience gained by  a  judicial  officer.   If
the service of a judicial officer is counted for fixation of pension,  there
is no valid reason as to why the experience at  Bar  cannot  be  treated  as
equivalent for the same purpose.

25)    The  fixation  of  higher  pension  to  the  Judges  drawn  from  the
Subordinate   Judiciary   who   have   served   for   shorter   period    in
contradistinction to Judges drawn from the Bar who have  served  for  longer
period with less pension is highly discriminatory and breach of  Article  14
of the Constitution.  The classification itself is unreasonable without  any
legally acceptable nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

26)   The meager pension for Judges drawn from the Bar and served  for  less
than 12 years on the Bench adversely affects the  image  of  the  Judiciary.
When pensions are meager because of the shorter service, lawyers who  attain
distinction in the profession may not, because of this anomaly,  accept  the
office of Judgeship.  When capable lawyers do not show  inclination  towards
Judgeship, the quality of justice declines.

27)   In most of the States, the Judgeship of the High Court is  offered  to
advocates who are in the age group of 50-55  years,  since  pre-eminence  at
the Bar is achieved normally at that age.  After remaining at the top for  a
few years, a successful lawyer may show  inclination  to  accept  Judgeship,
since that is the culmination of the desire and objective  of  most  of  the
lawyers.  When persons holding constitutional office  retire  from  service,
making discrimination in the fixation of their pensions depending  upon  the
source from which they were appointed is in breach of Articles 14 and  16(1)
of the Constitution.  One rank one pension must be the norm in respect of  a
Constitutional Office.

28)   When a Civil Servant retires  from  service,  the  family  pension  is
fixed at a higher rate whereas in the case of Judges of the High  Court,  it
is fixed at a lower rate.  No discrimination can be made in  the  matter  of
payment of family pension.  The expenditure for pension to  the  High  Court
Judges  is  charged  on  the  Consolidated  Fund  of  India  under   Article
112(3)(d)(iii) of the Constitution.

29)   In the light of what is discussed, we accept  the  petitioners’  claim
and declare  that  for  pensionary  benefits,  ten  years’  practice  as  an
advocate be added as a qualifying service for Judges elevated from the  Bar.
 Further, in order to remove arbitrariness in the matter of pension  of  the
Judges of the High Courts elevated from the Bar, the reliefs,  as  mentioned
above are to be reckoned from 01.04.2004, the date on which Section 13A  was
inserted  by  the  High  Court  and  Supreme  Court  Judges  (Salaries   and
Conditions  of  Service)  Amendment  Act,  2005  (46  of  2005).   Requisite
amendment be carried out in the High Court Judges Rules,  1956  with  regard
to post-retiral benefits as has been done in relation to the retired  Judges
of the Supreme Court in terms of amendment carried out by  Rule  3B  of  the
Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959.

Civil Appeal Nos.4248-4249 of 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9558-9559 of 2010

30)   Leave granted.

31)   At the instance of the Association of retired Judges  of  the  Supreme
Court and High Courts, the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan  at
Jaipur directed the State Government to pay a sum of  Rs.9,000/-  per  month
to a retired Chief Justice of the High Court to meet  expenses  of  domestic
help/peon/driver/telephone expenses and secretarial assistance etc. and  Rs.
7,500/- per month to a  retired  Judge  of  the  High  Court  for  the  same
purposes.  The said order shall be effective from  01.02.2010.   Questioning
the same, the State of Rajasthan has filed the above appeal.

32)   With reference to the above claim and the order of the High Court,  in
the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief  Justices  of  the  High  Courts
held on 18.09.2004, the following Resolution was passed:

      “18. Augmenting of post-retiral benefits of Judges.

      Xxx xxxxx

      [vi] As regards post-retiral benefits to the  retired  Judges  of  the
      High Courts, the scheme sanctioned by the State of Andhra  Pradesh  be
      adopted and followed in all the States, except where  better  benefits
      are already available.”

33)   It is brought to our notice that in pursuance of the said  Resolution,
most of the  States  in  the  country  have  extended  various  post-retiral
benefits to the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the  respective
High Courts.  By G.O.Ms.No. 28 dated 16.03.2012 issued  by  Law  Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount of Rs.14,000/-  per  month
to the retired Chief Justices of the High Court of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  an
amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the retired Judges of the High  Court  of
Andhra Pradesh for defraying the services of an  orderly,  driver,  security
guard etc. and for meeting expenses incurred towards secretarial  assistance
on contract basis and a residential telephone free of cost  with  number  of
free calls to the extent of 1500 per month over  and  above  the  number  of
free calls per month allowed  by  the  telephone  authorities  to  both  the
retired Chief Justices and Judges  of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh
w.e.f. 01.04.2012.

34)   While appreciating  the  steps  taken  by  the  Government  of  Andhra
Pradesh and other States who have already formulated such  scheme,  by  this
order, we hope and trust that the States who have not  so  far  framed  such
scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local conditions,  for  the
benefit of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of  the  respective
High Courts as early as possible preferably within a period  of  six  months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

35)   All the Writ Petitions and the appeals are disposed of  on  the  above
terms. In view of  the  disposal  of  the  writ  petitions,  no  orders  are
required in the intervention application.


                                  .…….…………………………CJI.


                                       (P. SATHASIVAM)










                                    ………….…………………………J.


                                      (RANJAN GOGOI)
























                                  ………….…………………………J.


                                      (N.V. RAMANA)



NEW DELHI;
MARCH 31, 2014.
-----------------------
17


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.