( 1 ) RULE D. B. All India Young Lawyers Association (Registered) has filed this writ petition in public interest to espouse the cause of direct recruits to Delhi higher Judicial service. The prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to the Govt. of National Capital Territory Delhi for adding the actual period of practice at the Bar subject to a maximum of 15 years while computing the pensionary and other retiral benefits of a direct recruit to the delhi Higher Judicial Service.

( 2 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondents including Govt. of national Capital Territory, Delhi. Pursuant thereto the Govt. of NCT Delhi has through a letter dated 2. 2. 2006 addressed to the Registrar General of this Court by the Secretary (Law, Justice and Legal Affairs) has partly conceded to the prayer of the petitioner by agreeing to give weightage of seven years of practice at the Bar while computing the pensionary and other retiral benefits of a direct recruit on his attaining the age of superannuation. Ms. Hima Kohli, learned counsel for Govt. of NCT has contended that letter dated 2. 2. 2006 be placed before the Full Court for its consideration before taking decision in this writ petition. We only observe that the prayer of the learned counsel for Govt. of nct as contained in the letter dated 2. 2. 2006 is highly improper. The decision was taken by the Full Court in 1987 and thereafter in 2005. Once the decision has been taken in 1987 and thereafter reiterated in 2005 and on failure of respondents, judicial proceedings already initiated, the request is symptomatic of not concluding the decision regarding this even after a number of years. Now in view of the letter dated 2. 2. 2006, the controversy has narrowed down. All that we are now required to decide is as to the number of years of practice that can be reasonably added to the length of service of a direct recruit while computing the pensionary benefits.

( 3 ) WE may at the outset notice that similar question confronted many other states and in this regard three States, namely, Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat have already issued notifications for addition of 10 years of practice at the Bar in case of a direct recruit for the purpose of computation of his/her pensionary benefits. It has also been brought to our notice that Rule 16 of the Punjab superior Judicial Services Rules which enables a direct recruit to have the benefit of 10 years service at the Bar came under scrutiny of a three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Justice S. S. Dewan, AIR 1997 sc 2388. The question which arose before the Apex Court was whether the said rule was retrospective or prospective in operation. The Court has held that the Rule was prospective in operation but what is of importance for our purpose is the following observation made by the court. "what has been done by amending Rule 16 is to make the period of practice at the Bar, which was otherwise irrelevant for determining the qualifying service, also relevant for that purpose. It is a new concept and a new retiral benefit. The object of the amendment does not appear to be to go for liberalisation. The purpose for which it appears to have been made is to make it more attractive for those who are already in service so that they may not leave it and for new entrants so that they may be tempted to join it. "

( 4 ) THE Govt. of NCT, Delhi in its above referred letter dated 2. 2. 2006 has agreed to provide weightage of seven years on the ground that the entry into the delhi Higher Judicial Service by an Advocate requires minimum 7 years of practice at the Bar and therefore those many number of years are logical and reasonable to be added. In our view there is a fallacy in the reasoning adopted by the Government. What has been missed, or to say, overlooked is that it is not only 7 years of practice at the Bar which is a condition precedent for entering into the Delhi Higher Judicial Service