Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1660
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Brij Mohan Lal - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Transfer Case (Civil) Nos. 22 of 2001
Decided On : 29-07-2005
For the Petitioners:Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Mohd. Halim Siddiqui, Mr. Sandeep Singh, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, WP(C) 140 Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, Mr. R. Yamunah Nachiar, For I.A 13 Mr. Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. A. Sharan, ASG, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Mr. D.S. Mahera, Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Mr. P Parmeswaran, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, (A.C.), Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Mr. Avijeet Lala, for M/s. P.S.N. & Co., Mr. P.H. Parekh, Mr. Rohit Alex, Allahabad High Court Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava, Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Advocates
For the State of Goa :- Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate
For the State of Nagaland :Mr. Upamanya Hazarika, Mr. Satya Mitra, Advocates
For the State of Assam :Mr. Krishna Sarma, Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, Mr. Atul Kumar, Mr. Riku Sarma, Advocates
For the State of Arunachal Pradesh :Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Ms. Banosri, Ms. Smita, Advocates
For the State of Manipur :Mr. KH. Nobin Singh, Advocate
For the State of Rajasthan :Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl. Adv. General, Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Advocates
For the State of Maharashtra :Mr. S.S. Shinde, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Advocates
For the State of Meghalaya :Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate
For the State of Pondicharry :Mr. V.G. Pragasan, Advocate
For the State of Jharkhand :Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocates
For the State of Nagaland :Mr. U. Hazarika, Mr. Satya Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advocates
For the State of Chhattisgarh :Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Standing Counsel,Ms. Deepti Singh, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Advocates
For the State of A.P. :Mr. B. Sridhar, Mr. K. Ramkumar, Mr. D. Bharathi Reddy, Mr. P. Vinay, Ms. Sneha Bhaskaran, Advocates
For the State of Gujarat/Mizoram :Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Sudhna Sndhu, Advocates
For the State of W.B./ J & K :Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advocates
For the State of Chandigarh :Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. Shomila Bakshi, Advocates
For the State of Tripura :Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocates
For the State of Punjab :Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate
For the State of H.P. :Mr. J.S. Attri, Advocate
For the State of Uttaranchal :Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate
For the State of Orissa :Mr. Janaranjan Das, Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Advocates
For the State of U.P. :Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Mr. Samar Ali Khan, Advocates
For the State of Bihar :Ms. Sunita R. Singh, Advocate
For the State of Haryana :Mr. Manjeet Singh, Ms. Vivekta Singh, Mr. Hariksh Singh, Mr. Harikishan Kataria, Mr. Sanjay Rathee, Mr. T.V. George, Mr. C.D. Singh, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ms. Kiran Suvarna, Advocates
For the State of Sikkim/ Rajasthan :Mr. A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Mr. V.K.Sidharthan, for M/s. Corporate Law Group, Mr. B.B. Singh, Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mr. B.S. Banthia, Mr. V.D. Khanna, Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Mr. M.N. Sharma, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Mr. S. Murlidhar, Mr. Arun K Sinha, Advocates
For the Intervenor :Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocates
Timely filing of satisfactory affidavits by the concerned parties is essential for the court's consideration and decision-making process.
Headnote:
Unsatisfactory Affidavit - Judicial Officers - The State of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are directed to file appropriate affidavits within three weeks regarding the continuity of service of judicial officers, including those who had been reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Notice issued to the Union of India and the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta returnable within four weeks. Affidavits to be filed within three weeks. Multiple states and high courts directed to file affidavits within specified timelines.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad filed unsatisfactory affidavits regarding the continuity of service of judicial officers, including those who had been reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Notice issued to the Union of India and the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta returnable within four weeks. Multiple states and high courts directed to file affidavits within specified timelines.
Finding of the Court:
The State of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are directed to file appropriate affidavits within three weeks regarding the continuity of service of judicial officers, including those who had been reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Notice issued to the Union of India and the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta returnable within four weeks. Multiple states and high courts directed to file affidavits within specified timelines.
Issues: Unsatisfactory affidavits filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad regarding the continuity of service of judicial officers, including those who had been reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Notice issued to the Union of India and the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta returnable within four weeks. Multiple states and high courts directed to file affidavits within specified timelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to file appropriate affidavits within three weeks regarding the continuity of service of judicial officers, including those who had been reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Notice issued to the Union of India and the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta returnable within four weeks. Multiple states and high courts directed to file affidavits within specified timelines.
Final Decision: The State of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are directed to file appropriate affidavits within three weeks regarding the continuity of service of judicial officers, including those who had been reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Notice issued to the Union of India and the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta returnable within four weeks. Multiple states and high courts directed to file affidavits within specified timelines.
ORDER :
1. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh is wholly unsatisfactory. The State of Uttar Pradesh as also the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is directed to file appropriate affidavits within three weeks as regard the continuity of service or otherwise of those judicial officers including those who had been reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division).
IA 12
2. Let notice be issued to the Union of India and also to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta returnable within four weeks. Counter Affidavits be filed within three weeks.
IA 11
3. Let notice be issued to the Union of India and also to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta returnable within four weeks. Counter Affidavits be filed within three weeks.
4. IA Nos. 11 and 12 will be heard together.
5. Issue notice returnable within four weeks.
6. Ms. D. Bharati Reddy and Mr. T.V. Ratnam, learned counsel accept notice on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Union of India respectively.
7. Affidavits be filed within three weeks.
IA 14
8. Issue notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh and also the High Court of Madhya Pradesh returnable within four weeks. Mr. C.D. Singh, and Mr.T.V. Ratnam, learned counsel accept notice on behalf of the State of M.P. and the Union of India respectively.
9. Counter Affidavits be filed within three weeks.
10. It appears that despite this Court's order dated 29th April, 2005 some of the States/High Courts have not filed their respective affidavits. The Registry shall inform the standing counsel appearing on behalf of the States/High Courts that the affidavits to be filed within three weeks.
11. Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the J & K High Court.
12. Mr. P.H. Parekh, appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court states that he files an affidavit. Let it be kept on record. Registry is directed to number the affidavit as an I.A.
13. Issue notice. Mr. B.B. Singh learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State of Bihar.
14. List the matters after four weeks.
