Justice V. S. Dave President, The Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court And High Courts vs Kusumjit Sidhu

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(SC) 1601

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.
Justice V.S. Dave President, The Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court And High Courts - Petitioner
Versus
Kusumjit Sidhu And Ors. - Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.425-426 of 2015 In Writ Petition (Civil) No.523 and 524 of 2002 With Contempt Petition(C) No.528 of 2015 In Writ Petition (Civil) No.521 of 2002
Decided On : 27-10-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.R. Calla, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rukhmani S. Bobde, Adv., Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv., Mr. Abhishek V. Deshmukh, Adv., Ms. Himanjali Gautam, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv., Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv., Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv., Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv., Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv., Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv., Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv., General Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv., Mr. Avneesh Aruputham, Adv., Ms. Anuradha Arputham,Adv., Mr. Yusuf, Adv., Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG, Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Adv., Ms. Vartika Sahay, Adv., Ms. Archana Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Mahesh K. Adv., Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv., Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv., Mr. Nishant R. Katneswkar, Adv., Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Adv., Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv., Mr. M.R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv., Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv., Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv., Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv., Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv., Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv., Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv., Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv., Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv., Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv., Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv., Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv., Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv., Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Mohd. Waquas, Adv., Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv., Mr. T.K. Singh, Adv., Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv., Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv., Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv., Mrs. G.Indira, AOR, Mr. Balasubramanian, Adv., Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv., Ms. S. Pandana Reddy, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv., Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv., Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv., Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv., Mr. Edward Belho, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv., Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv., Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Adv., Mr. Parijat Sinha, Adv., Mr. B. Balaji, Adv., Ms. R. Shase, Adv., Mr. Pratp Venugopal, Adv., Mr. Anuj Sarma, Adv., Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv., Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv., Mr. Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Ajit Bhattacharjee, Adv., Ms. Upma Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Arun Kumar, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv., Mr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Adv., Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Adv., Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv., Mr. Ashok Kumar Juneja, Adv., Mr. Chand Qureshi, Adv., Ms. G. Indira, Adv., Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv., Mr. Mishra Saurabh, Adv., Mr. Parijat Sinha, Adv., Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv., Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate.

Headnote:
Civil Laws – Contempt – Counsels appearing on behalf of the Union Territories submit that the Union Territories have No role to play in the matter of grant of post retrial benefits. – Post retirement allowances are granted by the concerned States in respect of the High Court of that particular State which exercise jurisdiction over the Union Territory in question. – In view of the above, court close the contempt petition insofar as Union Territories are concerned. State of Meghalaya, Manipur, Maharashtra, Goa, Mizoram Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Telengana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Government of NCT of Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Gujarat and Assam – Held, Though No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, the learned Advocate General has appeared in Court had submitted that the retired Chief justices and Judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court are being paid lump sum allowances in terms of the Government Notification which is in conformity With the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34. – Court is of the view that the State of Himachal Pradesh should consider enhancement of the allowances at least to the level of what is being paid by the majority of the States i.e. Rs. 14,000/- for Chief Justices, Rs. 12,000/- for Honble Judges and free telephone calls upto Rs. 1500/- in number. – Insofar as medical facilities are concerned, it is stated by the learned Advocate General that the retired chief justices and judges of the Himachal Pradesh are at par With the sitting Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court. – Contempt Petitions Disposed of

JUDGMENT :

We have read and considered the counter affidavits/responses filed by the States With regard to the implementation of the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 521 of 2002 [P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors.] and other connected matters. The aforesaid two paragraphs of the order of the Court are extracted below:

Para 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 Court. By G.O.Ms. No. 28 dated 16.03.2012 issued by Law Department 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.

Para 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 benefits 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.

2. On consideration of the stand taken by the States in their counter affidavits/responses, the following directions are issued in respect of each of the respondents-States:

State of Jharkhand

3. The State of Jharkhand has Not implemented the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 521 of 2002 [P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors.] and other connected matters. This is on the basis of a letter dated 16.04.2013 of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. We have read and considered the said letter and the provisions of the High Court's Judges (Salary and conditions of Service) Act 1954. The post retrial benefits covered by the directions in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 have No connection With the provisions of the Act mentioned above. Therefore, the letter of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India dated 16.4.2013 can Not be a sound basis for Non-implementation of the said directions of the Court. We, accordingly, give four weeks time, from today, to the State of Jharkhand to implement the directions as extracted above by framing an appropriate scheme effective from the date of expiry of six months from the order dated 31.03.2014 i.e. 30th September, 2014.

State of Nagaland:

4. On instructions received, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland has submitted that the State does Not have a separate High Court and also that No judge appointed from the State has retired till date. The directions of the Court will, therefore, be implemented as and when the occasion arises.

5. We do Not find either of the contentions to be acceptable. The High Court of Guwahati is the common High Court for four States including the State of Nagaland. One or more judges of the Guwahati High Court are appointed as permanent judges of the Nagaland Bench of the High Court which services the State of Nagaland. It is that particular Judge who is permanently posted in the Nagaland Bench who would be a judge of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday