whether the service rendered by the petitioners in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee prior to the promulgation of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000 is to be counted while calculating their qualifying service for determination of pension. ? The Union of India has raised a two­fold submission. It is first submitted that the service of the petitioners rendered prior to 03.07.2000 cannot be taken into consideration while quantifying the qualifying service or determining their retiral benefits. It is secondly contended that this plea could have been taken in the earlier writ petition and, in fact, such a plea was raised but finally the Court did not grant this relief and, therefore, they cannot file the second petition. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee was created under administrative instructions of the Government. Thereafter, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 came into force. The services of the officers and employees were governed by Rule 3A and after 2000, they are governed by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Regulations, 2000. They have been rendering service uninterruptedly as employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and no distinction can be made between the service prior to 03.07.2000 and the service rendered thereafter. The petitioners have been regular employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and their entire service must be counted for determining their pension and other retiral benefits. This entire service is to be treated as their qualifying service in accordance with the Rules. As far as the second submission made on behalf of the Union of India is concerned, we have carefully gone through the earlier order and the writ petition. Though it is correct that in the writ petition there was a general claim to grant all the benefits under Rule 6 which would include retiral benefits but it appears that the Court did not go into the same. There is no rejection of the plea and as such we are of the considered view that this petition is maintainable and cannot be rejected on this hyper­technical ground. In relation to applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 this Court has held in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1 as follows: 1 AIR 1962 SC 1334 7 “12. …The bar of O.2 R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on which the High Court apparently relied may not apply to a petition for a high prerogative writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but the High Court having disallowed the claim of the appellant for salary prior to the date of the suit, we do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the exercise of its discretion by the High Court.” Placing reliance on the case of Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma (supra), this Court in Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat2 in relation to Order II Rule 2 held as follows: “23. …By its very language, these provisions do not apply to the contents of a writ petition and consequently do not apply to the contents of a subsequent suit…” In view of the above, we allow the petition and direct that the entire service rendered by the petitioners in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and shall be taken into consideration for calculating their retiral benefits. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

whether the service rendered   by   the   petitioners   in   the   Supreme   Court   Legal   Aid Committee and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee prior to the promulgation of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000 is to be counted while calculating their qualifying service for determination of pension.  ?

The Union of India has raised a two­fold submission.  It is first submitted that the service of the petitioners rendered prior to   03.07.2000   cannot   be   taken   into   consideration   while
quantifying   the   qualifying   service   or   determining   their   retiral benefits.  It is secondly contended that this plea could have been taken in the earlier writ petition and, in fact, such a plea was
raised   but   finally   the   Court   did   not   grant   this   relief   and, therefore, they cannot file the second petition.   From   the   facts   narrated   above,   it   is   apparent   that   the
Supreme   Court   Legal   Aid   Committee   was   created   under administrative instructions of the Government.   Thereafter, the Legal   Services   Authorities   Act,   1987   came   into   force.     The
services of the officers and employees were governed by Rule 3A and after 2000, they are governed by the Supreme Court Legal Services   Committee   Regulations,   2000.     They   have   been
rendering service uninterruptedly as employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and no distinction can be made between the service prior to 03.07.2000 and the service rendered
thereafter.   The petitioners have been regular employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and their entire service must be counted for determining their pension and other retiral
benefits.  This entire service is to be treated as their qualifying service in accordance with the Rules.  
 As far as the second submission made on behalf of the Union of India is concerned, we have carefully gone through the earlier order and the writ petition.  Though it is correct that in
the   writ   petition   there   was   a   general   claim   to   grant   all   the benefits under Rule 6 which would include retiral benefits but it appears that the Court did not go into the same.   There is no
rejection of the plea and as such we are of the considered view that this petition is maintainable and cannot be rejected on this hyper­technical ground.   In relation to applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 this Court has held in Devendra   Pratap   Narain   Rai   Sharma v. State   of   Uttar Pradesh and Others1  as follows: 1 AIR 1962 SC 1334 
7
“12. …The bar of O.2 R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on
which the High Court apparently relied may not apply to
a petition for a high prerogative writ under Art. 226 of the
Constitution, but the High Court having disallowed the
claim of the appellant for salary prior to the date of the
suit,   we   do   not   think   that   we   would   be   justified   in
interfering with the exercise of its discretion by the High
Court.”
Placing reliance on the case of  Devendra  Pratap  Narain
Rai   Sharma  (supra),   this   Court   in  Gulabchand   Chhotalal
Parikh v. State of Gujarat2
 in relation to Order II Rule 2 held as
follows:
“23. …By its very language, these provisions do not apply
to the contents of a writ petition and consequently do not
apply to the contents of a subsequent suit…”
 In view of the above, we allow the petition and direct that the entire service rendered by the petitioners in the Supreme Court   Legal   Aid   Committee   and   the   Supreme   Court   Legal Services Committee shall be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and shall be taken into consideration for calculating their retiral benefits.   Pending application(s), if any,
stand(s)          disposed of.


NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 59 OF 2019
BRAHMA SINGH AND OTHERS  …PETITIONER(S)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS       …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The short issue involved in this case is whether the service
rendered   by   the   petitioners   in   the   Supreme   Court   Legal   Aid
Committee and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee prior to
the promulgation of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
Rules, 2000 is to be counted while calculating their qualifying
service for determination of pension.  
2. The petitioners are serving and retired employees of the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee in various capacities.
They claim that the entire service rendered by them should be
1
treated as qualifying service for the purpose of fixing the retiral
benefits.  The respondent no.1­Union of India has rejected their
claim on 11.09.2017 and 08.12.2017, leading to the filing of this
petition.  The case of the petitioners is that their claim is squarely
covered by the judgment already rendered in their favour in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.267 of 2008 wherein considering the effect of
the Rules which are now under consideration, their entire service
was taken into consideration for fixing the pay and allowances
and they were given complete benefit of Rule 6 of The Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee Rules,2000.   According to the
Union of India, the benefit can be given only from the date of
promulgation of the Rules and not prior to that.   Some of the
petitioners joined in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee as
far back as in 1981 and the service not taken into consideration
is more than 18 years and 8 months.
3. The Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee was constituted by
the Ministry of Law & Justice under executive instructions on
10.07.1981.   Para 7 of the said instructions provides that the
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee shall be entitled to make
necessary arrangements for staff and other facilities necessary for
2
the discharge of its functions.   These instructions were issued
with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, Department of
Expenditure.  Therefore, the posts were sanctioned posts though
no rules were framed for filling up the same.  Pursuant to these
instructions,   the   petitioners   were   appointed   in   different
capacities in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.  In 1987,
the Parliament enacted the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The   National   Legal   Services   Authority   was   constituted   under
Section 3.  Sub­section (5) and (6) of Section 3 provide that the
Central Authority can appoint officers and other employees.  The
appointment of such employees and their pay and allowances are
to be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with
the  Chief Justice of  India.   Section  3A of  the Legal Services
Authorities   Act   provides   for   the   constitution   of   the   Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee and sub­section (5) and (6) are
identical to sub­section (5) and (6) of Section 3.  Rule 9 of The
National Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995 provides that the
conditions of service and salary and allowances of officers and
other employees of the Central Authority shall be at par with the
Central Government employees holding equivalent posts and it
further provides that in all matters like age of retirement, pay
3
and   allowances,  the  rules  applicable  to  the   employees  of  the
Central Government shall also apply to the employees of the
Central Authority.   The Central Authority framed the Supreme
Court   Legal   Services   Committee   Regulations,   1996   and
Regulations 3(1) and 3(2) thereof read as follows;
“3. General effect of vesting. – On and from the date of
commencement of these regulations, ­
(1)All the assets, liabilities, rights, title and interest of the
erstwhile   Supreme   Court   Legal   Aid   Committee   stand
transferred to, and vest in, Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee; 
3(2) The   staff,   who   have   been   serving   under   the
erstwhile Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee shall be
deemed   to   be   working   for   the   Supreme   Court   Legal
Services Committee;
xxx xxx xxx”
4. The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000
were framed by the Central Government in consultation with the
Chief Justice of India and came into effect on 03.07.2000.  Rule 6
is relevant for our purpose and reads as follows:
“6.  The   conditions   of   service   and   the   salary   and
allowances  payable  to  the  officers  and  employees  of
the  Supreme  Court  Legal  Services  Committee  under
sub­section (6) of section 3A.­(1) The officers and other
employees   of   the   Supreme   Court   Legal   Services
Committee shall be entitled to draw pay and allowances
in the scale of pay indicated against each post in the
Schedule   to   these   rules   or   at   par   with   the   Central
Government employees holding equivalent posts.
4
(2)In   all   matters   like   age   of   retirement,   pay   and
allowances,   benefits   and   entitlements   and   disciplinary
matters, the officers and employees of the Supreme Court
Legal   Services   Committee   shall   be   governed   by   the
Central Government rules as are applicable to persons
holding equivalent posts.
(3)The officers and other employees of the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee shall be entitled to such other
facilities and benefits as may be notified by the Central
Government from time to time.
Explanation.  –   The   words   “benefits”,   “allowances”,
“entitlements”, “facilities” occurring in these rules shall
be   deemed   to   include,   the   entitlement   to   gratuity,
provident fund, housing, medical benefits, pension, group
insurance,   and   all   other   benefits   as   are   available   to
employees of the Central Government holding equivalent
posts.”
Sub­rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee Rules clearly states that in all matters like age of
retirement, pay and allowances and benefits on retirement the
officers   and   employees   of   the   Supreme   Court   Legal   Services
Committee shall be governed by the Central Government rules. 
5. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2008 whereby they had claimed
that they were entitled to pay and allowances and other benefits
under Rule 6 quoted hereinabove.  That writ petition was allowed
and the respondents were directed to give full benefit of Rule 6 of
the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules by fixing the
pay and allowances of the petitioners and other similarly situated
5
employees in the pay scales specified in the Schedule appended
to the Rules or at par with the Central Government employees
holding equivalent posts.  They were also directed to pay arrears
from the date of promulgation of the Rules i.e. 03.07.2000. 
6. The Union of India has raised a two­fold submission.  It is
first submitted that the service of the petitioners rendered prior
to   03.07.2000   cannot   be   taken   into   consideration   while
quantifying   the   qualifying   service   or   determining   their   retiral
benefits.  It is secondly contended that this plea could have been
taken in the earlier writ petition and, in fact, such a plea was
raised   but   finally   the   Court   did   not   grant   this   relief   and,
therefore, they cannot file the second petition.  
7. From   the   facts   narrated   above,   it   is   apparent   that   the
Supreme   Court   Legal   Aid   Committee   was   created   under
administrative instructions of the Government.   Thereafter, the
Legal   Services   Authorities   Act,   1987   came   into   force.     The
services of the officers and employees were governed by Rule 3A
and after 2000, they are governed by the Supreme Court Legal
Services   Committee   Regulations,   2000.     They   have   been
rendering service uninterruptedly as employees of the Supreme
6
Court Legal Services Committee and no distinction can be made
between the service prior to 03.07.2000 and the service rendered
thereafter.   The petitioners have been regular employees of the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and their entire service
must be counted for determining their pension and other retiral
benefits.  This entire service is to be treated as their qualifying
service in accordance with the Rules.  
8. As far as the second submission made on behalf of the
Union of India is concerned, we have carefully gone through the
earlier order and the writ petition.  Though it is correct that in
the   writ   petition   there   was   a   general   claim   to   grant   all   the
benefits under Rule 6 which would include retiral benefits but it
appears that the Court did not go into the same.   There is no
rejection of the plea and as such we are of the considered view
that this petition is maintainable and cannot be rejected on this
hyper­technical ground.   In relation to applicability of Order II
Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 this Court has held in
Devendra   Pratap   Narain   Rai   Sharma v. State   of   Uttar
Pradesh and Others1
 as follows:
1 AIR 1962 SC 1334 
7
“12. …The bar of O.2 R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on
which the High Court apparently relied may not apply to
a petition for a high prerogative writ under Art. 226 of the
Constitution, but the High Court having disallowed the
claim of the appellant for salary prior to the date of the
suit,   we   do   not   think   that   we   would   be   justified   in
interfering with the exercise of its discretion by the High
Court.”
Placing reliance on the case of  Devendra  Pratap  Narain
Rai   Sharma  (supra),   this   Court   in  Gulabchand   Chhotalal
Parikh v. State of Gujarat2
 in relation to Order II Rule 2 held as
follows:
“23. …By its very language, these provisions do not apply
to the contents of a writ petition and consequently do not
apply to the contents of a subsequent suit…”
9. In view of the above, we allow the petition and direct that
the entire service rendered by the petitioners in the Supreme
Court   Legal   Aid   Committee   and   the   Supreme   Court   Legal
Services Committee shall be treated as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension and shall be taken into consideration for
calculating their retiral benefits.   Pending application(s), if any,
stand(s)          disposed of.
………………………………..J.
(L. Nageswara Rao)
2 AIR 1965 SC 1153
8
…………………………………J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
February 05, 2020
9