2023 Supreme(All) 2839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNEET KUMAR, RAJENDRA KUMAR - IV, JJ.
Association of Retired Supreme Court And H.C.Judges And Another - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India And Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO.38595 OF 2011.
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Alok Kumar Yadav,Shashi Nandan,Vikram D. Chauhan.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.(2011/1050),Ashish Mishra,Yashwant Verma.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 229 - Recall application against Court's order on post-retiral benefits for retired Judges of the High Court - Officers of Finance Department questioned authority of Chief Justice to frame rules regarding benefits. Court found officers' objections contemptuous, noted failure to comply with earlier orders, and emphasized that the proposal must be forwarded within a week. (Paras 5, 6, 25, 28, 33)
(B) Judicial Authority - Judicial independence and authority of retired Judges' benefits - Court affirmed that the High Court can propose amendments to existing Government Orders for better benefits. (Paras 17, 19, 22)
(C) Contempt of Court - Conduct of Finance Department officers deemed to have committed contempt for misleading Court and failing to act on previous orders. (Paras 31, 33)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought clarification on the provision of benefits to retired Judges, citing inadequate responses from the Finance Department and lack of action on Government Orders regarding benefits established in prior Supreme Court rulings. The Court scrutinized the officers' actions, which included a proposal for enhanced benefits following a precedent set by another State.
Findings of Court:
The Finance Department was ordered to approve the proposed rules and complete the notification process within a week, highlighting the officers' conduct as unprofessional and alleging a systemic obstruction of the High Court’s directives.
Issues: The principal issues addressed were the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice under Article 229 and the responsiveness of the Finance Department to previously established legal frameworks for Judges' benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed that the proposal for benefits amendments falls within the purview of the High Court and rejected the Finance Department's stance as an unjustified obstruction to compliance with judicial orders.
Result: Officers taken into custody for contempt; compliance orders issued to ensure resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for recalling order (Para 2) |
| 2. objections raised by finance department (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's perception of contempt (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. supreme court order needs compliance (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. state's obligations towards retired judges (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. supreme court's direction on benefits (Para 12 , 14 , 27) |
| 7. contempt allegations against officials (Para 30 , 31) |
| 8. measures taken against officials for contempt (Para 33 , 34) |
| 9. final directives from the court (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri L.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Praful Tiwari, Shri Vineet Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General for the applicants, Shri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the High Court.
2. The recall application dated 19 April 2023, and the exemption application has been filed by the officers of the State directly before the Court with a prayer to recall the order dated 4 April 2023, passed by this Court. The order dated 4 April 2023, is extracted:
"1. Pursuant to order dated 23 March 2023, Shri S.M.A. Rizvi, Secretary, Finance, Shri Sarayu Prasad Mishra, Special Secretary, Finance and Principal Secretary Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, are present along with the record.
2. The Court was constraint to summon the officers as the matter pertaining to providing domestic help and other facilities to the former Chief Justices and former Judges of this Court was kept pending on one pretext or the other. On repeated request made by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the matter is pending consideration at the highest level, as many as, five adjournments over several months was granted. However, the authorities did not take decision.
3. The Principal Secretary Law, at the outset, points out that the matter was placed before the Finance Department for approval on six occasions, but the approval was not accorded.
4. On query, Secretary Finance, submits that the proposed Rules submitted by the High Court is beyond the 'competence of the Chief Justice' as the matter pertains to the post retiral benefits of the retired Judges. Further, Special Secretary, Finance stated that the Rules proposed by the High Court in the matter was beyond the scope of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. He further stated that the matter be referred to the Central Government, to draw a Rule that would uniformly be made applicable to the retired Judges across the country.
5. On perusal of the record with the assistance of the learned Additional Advocate General, we do not find any such objection which is being pressed before this Court. In other words, the attitude of the officers of the Finance Department is not only contemptuous, but at the same time their stand/submission with regard to the competence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice/Article 229 is not reflected from the record.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the High Court, at the outset, submits that the approach and attitude of the Finance Department of late has been that of 'big brother', attempting to stall any recommendation/proposal made by the High Court on any matter on one pretext or the other without due deliberation. They do not suggest as to how the matter proposed by the High Court, after due approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, could have been carried out, and/or, given effect to. The objections that is being raised do not fall within the ambit of the Finance Department. At the best they should have raised their objection/concerns, if any, with the Law Department. The audacity of the officers to raise the issue of competence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, is not only unbecoming of a civil servant, but at the same time contemptuous. These objections are not available on record, nor, have it been brought to the notice of the Law Department for legal advice. The Government Order granting benefits to the retired Judges is already in
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
