24. As against this in M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India (AJR 1990 SC 2263) the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question of equivalence of status of the Members/Vice-Chairman of the Tribunals vis-a-vis Judges of a High Court. Paragraph 8 of this Judgment is a complete answer to the argument that Members Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal have been held to be equivalent in status to that of the Judges of a High Court in Sampat Kumar's case (supra). We reproduce Paragraph No.8 hereunder :-

"The sheet-a anchor of petitioner's case is the decision of this Court in Sampat Kumar's case (AIR 1987 SC 386) (supra). We will presently show that the decision in Sampat Kumar's case (supra) does not support the petitioner's claim in this petition. It is significant to note that the age of superannuation of High Court Judges is 62 years while that of the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Tribunal is 65 years and of any other member is 62 years. No attempt has been made on behalf of the petitioner to justify the fixation of age of superannuation of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman as 65 years if they are to be equated with the Chief Justice and sitting Judges of the High Court who retire at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document