ITEM NO.2                 COURT NO. 1               SECTION XIV             S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10630/2006 (From the  judgement  and  order dated  24/02/2006  in   WP No.  21211/2005   of  The  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)

GOVT.OF N.C.T.OF DELHI & ORS                         Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS

ALL INDIA YOUNG LAWYERS ASSN.(REGD)                  Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for impleadment and prayer for interim relief )) (for final disposal)

Date: 29/01/2009  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE  THE CHIEF JUSTICE         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash, Adv.for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. No.1 Ms. Shailja Sinha, Adv.

For RR No.2 Mr. Maninder Singh ,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Leave granted.

The Appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order. No costs.

The Application for impleadment is rejected.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) Court Master

(Veera Varma) Court Master

[Signed Order is placed on the File]

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 498  OF 2009    (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10630 of 2006)

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others ..Appellants

versus

All India Young Lawyers Association(Regd.) & Another ..Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal has been filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi against the

judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 24th February, 2006 passed in Writ Petition

No.  21211 of 2005,  whereby the  High Court  has allowed the  writ  petition  filed by

respondent No.1 herein.

Facts:

Respondent No.1 preferred a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.21211 of 2005

before the High Court of Delhi, inter alia, seeking a mandamus to the appellants herein

that the actual  

-2-

period of practice at the Bar subject to a maximum of 15 years, should be added to the

total pensionable service while computing the pension and other retiral benefits in the

case of a direct recruitee to the Delhi Higher  Judicial Service.  The High Court, after

hearing both sides, by its impugned judgment held that the prayers made by the writ

petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) were reasonable and directed that the Rule 26(B)

be inserted in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') and

weightage of fifteen years of practice or such other number of years of practice at the

Bar whichever is less be given to the direct recruits while computing their pension and

other retiral benefits, thereby allowed the writ petition.

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the Government of

NCT of Delhi challenging the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the

Lawyers Association and High Court of Delhi.

In the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, direct recruitment to 25% of posts are

made from amongst the members of the Bar who have completed seven years practice

at the Bar. The minimum age for entry is 35 years and the maximum age is 45 years.

The main contention of the writ petitioner

-3-

(respondent  No.1  herein)  before  the  High  Court  was  to  include  the  fifteen  years'

practice at the Bar.   If a candidate joinsat the age of 35 years and retires at the age of

60 years, if not elevated to the Bench of the High Court, he would not be able to get full

pension as for getting full pension one should have 33 years of service whereas the total

service rendered by a member who joins at the age of 35 years will be 25 years of

service.  The High Court, on the administrative side, brought this fact to the notice of

the government by writing a letter in the year 1987. Though repeated reminders were

sent to the government,     no decision was taken by the Government till the end of

2005 and only on 02nd February, 2006 by a letter, Government has indicated that it was

agreeable to  give  weightage  of 7  years of  practice  at  the Bar while  computing  the

pension and other retiral benefits for direct recruits.  

Learned  counsel  appearing  for the  State  contended  that  the  reason  why

government has agreed to give weightage of 7 years practice at the Bar is that because

in  the  case  of  direct  recruitments  to  the  Delhi  Higher  Judicial  Service,  a  member

should have seven years' practice at the Bar and that is why Government thought it fit

to give weightage of seven years.  Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-

association submitted that High Court was right in directing  

-4-

the government to give weightage of fifteen years' practice at the Bar while computing

pension and other retiral benefits because otherwise most of the members of the Delhi

Higher Judicial Service would not be able to get full or adequate/reasonable pension at

the time of retirement.  It is also submitted that better conditions of service should be

made available to the persons who are direct recruitees from the Bar otherwise the best

talent would not be attracted for selection.  Learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1-High Court of Delhi has also brought to our notice the fact that the request was

made by the High Court in the year 1987 and despite repeated reminders, Government

has acceded to the request only in the year 2006 by its letter dated 02nd February, 2006.

It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

that in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat, weightage of 10 years' practice at

the Bar is given in the case of direct recruits while computing pension and other retiral

benefits.

We  have  considered  the  various  contentions  raised  before  us.  Learned

counsel appearing for the State vehemently contended that only the period of seven

years' practice at the Bar is to be added because the minimum qualification to enter

into the Delhi Higher Judicial Service as a direct recruit is seven years' practice at the

Bar.  That reason, by itself,  

-5-

does not appear to be justifiable as the total period of service for getting maximum or

full pension is 33 years as per the general rules of the Government of Delhi.  Learned

counsel for the State submitted that if 15 years' practice at the Bar is added, then there

is an apprehension that after joining the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and working for

a shorter period, members may quit the job because even after working for a shorter

period, they will get the proportionate pension if their past practice of 15 years at the

Bar is added.

Having regard to the facts of the case and having heard learned counsel for

the parties, we deem it  appropriate that 10 years practice at the Bar or such other

number of years whichever is less, could be added while computing pension and other

retiral benefits in the case of a direct recruit to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.  We

order accordingly.   

Insofar as apprehension of learned counsel for the State is concerned, we

make it clear that weightage of 10 years' practice at the Bar will be given only if the

direct recruit, who joins the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, actually works for minimum

ten years in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and then retire so as to enable them to

get reasonable/adequate pension at the time of retirement because as per general rules

to be eligible for minimum pension a  

-6-

person should have completed at least ten years of service.  Government of NCT of

Delhi is directed to suitably insert Rule  26(B) in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service

Rules, 1970.

The Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.  No costs.     

...................CJI [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN]

......................J. [P. SATHASIVAM]

NEW DELHI; ....................J. JANUARY 29, 2009. [J.M. PANCHAL]