1. Petitioners, Presiding Officers and Members of an Industrial Court not on deputation from the subordinate judiciary, challenge service conditions and superannuation age. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 625
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I., AND R.M. SAHAI, J.
ARVIND NARAYAN SORTI AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 366 of 1994
Decided on 12-7-1994
Benefits and schemes specifically designated for the subordinate judiciary are limited to officers appointed to that cadre and do not extend to other judicial officers not drawn from the regular subordinate judiciary, regardless of the judicial powers they exercise.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Superannuation and Pay Structure - Applicability of schemes for subordinate judiciary - Petitioners, being officers not drawn from the regular subordinate judiciary on deputation, cannot claim benefits of a scheme specifically confined to judicial officers appointed to the subordinate judiciary in the State, regardless of the nature of duties performed or judicial powers exercised. (Para 3)
(B) Service Law - Pay anomalies - Representations for correction of distortions in pay structure - If representations are not disposed of by the Government within a reasonable time, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to move the High Court for relief. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Presiding Officers and Members of an Industrial Court, who were not drawn from the regular subordinate judiciary on deputation, sought parity in age of superannuation and correction of pay anomalies compared to other judicial officers. They contended that the nature of their duties and judicial powers should entitle them to benefits granted to the subordinate judiciary.
Findings of Court:
The claim for parity in superannuation is not tenable as the relevant scheme was confined to judicial officers appointed to the subordinate judiciary. Regarding pay anomalies, the court declined to express an opinion on merits but noted the availability of a remedy through the High Court.
Issues: Whether officers not belonging to the regular subordinate judiciary are entitled to the same superannuation benefits as the subordinate judiciary and whether the court should intervene in pay anomaly representations.
Ratio Decidendi: Benefits and schemes specifically designed for the subordinate judiciary are limited to that cadre and do not extend to other judicial officers not appointed to that judiciary, even if they exercise similar judicial powers.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claim for superannuation age based on subordinate judiciary schemes and correction of pay anomalies relative to Labour Court Presiding Officers. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The subordinate judiciary service scheme is limited to officers appointed to that judiciary; pay anomalies may be pursued via the High Court. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Service schemes for judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary do not extend to Industrial Court officers not drawn from the subordinate judiciary. (Para 3 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Does a service scheme for the subordinate judiciary apply to Industrial Court officers not drawn from that judiciary?
No, such schemes are confined to judicial officers appointed to the subordinate judiciary in the State. (Para 3 )
7. What remedy is available if government representations regarding service anomalies are not considered within a reasonable time?
The aggrieved parties may move the High Court for the relief they consider they are entitled to. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. We have heard Dr Shankar Ghose, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are Presiding Officers and Members of the Industrial Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not disputed that they are not drawn from the regular subordinate judiciary on deputation.
3. There are several contentions urged by Dr Shankar Ghose in support of this petition. One of them is that having regard to the nature of the duties performed and judicial powers exercised by them, the pronouncement of this Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, will cover their cases and that their age of superannuation etc. should be regulated accordingly. We are afraid, this claim is not tenable. They are not directly covered by the said pronouncement and that scheme was confined to judicial officers appointed to the subordinate judiciary in the State.
4. It is, however, urged that there are other distortions and anomalies in the pay structure and conditions of the petitioners service vis-a-vis the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts on whose orders, the petitioners exercise appellate powers. It is also submitted that certain representations have been made to the Government by the petitioners for correcting the said anomalies and that the said representations have not been considered. This claim is independent of the one based on the applicability of the pronouncement of this Court in All India Judges Assn. case {(1993) 4 SCC 288. It is open to the petitioners, if the representations are not disposed of by the Government within a reasonable time, to move the High Court for such relief as the petitioners consider they are entitled to. We do not, however, express any opinion either on the merits or justiciability of any of those issues.
5. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
For citation: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 150
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
