Govt. of N.C.T. of
Delhi & Ors Vs. All India Young Lawyers Assn.(Regd)  INSC 187 (29
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No(s).10630/2006 (From the judgment 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.
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,
Mr. Om Prakash,
Adv.for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.
No.1 Ms. Shailja
For RR No.2 Mr.
Maninder Singh ,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Mr. Sumeet Bhatia,
UPON hearing counsel
the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.
The Appeal is partly
allowed in terms of the signed order. No costs.
The Application for
impleadment is rejected.
(Parveen Kr. Chawla)
(Veera Varma) Court Master 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 ORDER 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
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
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
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
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.
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
The Appeal is partly
allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
Pages: 1 2