(Ranjan Gogoi and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.)
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 425-426 of 2015
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 523 & 524 of 2002
Justice V.S. Dave President, The Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts _________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Kusumjit Sidhu and Ors. ________ Alleged Contemnor/Respondent(s)
With
Contempt Petition(c) No. 528/2015
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2002
M. Ramachandran _______________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Rajiv Mehrishi & Ors. ____________ Alleged Contemnor/Respondent(s)
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 425-426 of 2015; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 523 & 524 of 2002; Contempt Petition(c) No. 528/2015; and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2002, decided on October 27, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have read and considered the counter affidavits/responses filed by the States with regard to the implementation of the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 521 of 2002 [P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India] and other connected matters. The aforesaid two paragraphs of the order of the Court are extracted below:
Para 33:– It is brought to our notice that in pursuance of the said resolution, most of the States in the Country have extended various post-retiral benefits to the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Court. By G.O.Ms. No. 28 dated 16.03.2012 issued by Law Department of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month to the retired Chief Justices of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the retired Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for defraying the services of an orderly, driver, security guard etc. and for meeting expenses incurred towards secretarial assistance on contract basis and a residential telephone free of cost with number of free calls to the extent of 1500 per month over and above the number of free calls per month allowed by the Telephone authorities to both the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.04.2012.
Para 34:
While appreciating the steps taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already formulated such scheme, by this order, we hope and trust that the States who have not so far framed such Scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local conditions, for the benefits of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
2. On consideration of the stand taken by the States in their counter affidavits/responses, the following directions are issued in respect of each of the respondents-States:
State of Jharkhand
3. The State of Jharkhand has not implemented the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 521 of 2002 [P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India] and other connected matters. This is on the basis of a letter dated 16.04.2013 of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. We have read and considered the said letter and the provisions of the High Court’s Judges (Salary and conditions of Service) Act 1954. The post retrial benefits covered by the directions in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 have no connection with the provisions of the Act mentioned above. Therefore, the letter of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India dated 16.4.2013 cannot be a sound basis for non-implementation of the said directions of the Court. We, accordingly, give four weeks’ time, from today, to the State of Jharkhand to implement the directions as extracted above by framing an appropriate scheme effective from the date of expiry of six months from the order dated 31.03.2014 i.e. 30th September, 2014.
State of Nagaland:
4. On instructions received, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland has submitted that the State does not have a separate High Court and also that no judge appointed from the State has retired till date. The directions of the Court will, therefore, be implemented as and when the occasion arises.
5. We do not find either of the contentions to be acceptable. The High Court of Guwahati is the common High Court for four States including the State of Nagaland. One or more judges of the Guwahati High Court are appointed as permanent judges of the Nagaland Bench of the High Court which services the State of Nagaland. It is that particular Judge who is permanently posted in the Nagaland Bench who would be a judge of that State and his post retirement benefits will have to be dealt by the State. Accordingly, we grant four weeks’ time from today to the State of Nagaland to frame a scheme in accordance with the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014.
State of Orissa
6. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Orissa indicates that apart from the medical facilities for retired judges which is at par with the sitting judges, the State is providing an amount of Rs. 3500/- to every retired judge as “Domestic help Allowance”. While it is correct that the final determination of the amount to be paid had been left to be decided by the States we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 3500/- presently offered by the State of Orissa is grossly inadequate and the same needs an appropriate enhancement which matter will be dealt with the Government. We grant four weeks’ time from today to the State of Orissa to frame a scheme in accordance with the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03. 2014 keeping in view the amount that is being paid by other States.
U.T. Chandigarh
7. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the U.T. of Chandigarh submits that the U.T. of Chandigarh has no role to play in the matter of grant of post retrial benefits. We, accordingly, close the contempt petition insofar as U.T. of Chandigarh is concerned.
Puducherry and Other Union Territories viz. Lakshdweep, Daman and Diu, Dadar and Nagar Haveli and Andaman and Nicobar Islands
8. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Union Territories submit that the Union Territories have no role to play in the matter of grant of post retrial benefits. Post retirement allowances are granted by the concerned
States in respect of the High Court of that particular State which exercise jurisdiction over the Union Territory in question. In view of the above, we close the contempt petition insofar as Union Territories are concerned. State of Meghalaya, Manipur, Maharashtra, Goa, Mizoram Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunchal Pradesh, Telengana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Government of NCT of Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh, Kerala, Gujarat and Assam
9. The counter affidavits/responses filed on behalf of each of the aforesaid States indicate that a scheme has been framed in accordance with the directions of the Court. While some of the States are paying more than what the State of of Andhra Pradesh (Adpoted as the yardstick by the Court) is paying by way of post retirement allowances some others are affording lesser amount(s). A little variation from the yardstick can be understood in terms of the flexibility contemplated in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment which enable the States to frame their respective schemes keeping in mind the local conditions. As all the aforesaid States have framed their schemes, we direct that the contempt petitions insofar as these states are concerned are closed.
10. We also direct that the effective date of grant of the aforesaid reliefs will be six months from the date of the order of the Court dated 31.03.2014 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 521 of 2002 [P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India] and other connected matters. i.e. 30th September, 2014. If any State is granting such relief from anterior dates the same will not be affected by this order.
11. We have also noticed that most of the above mentioned states are providing medical facilities to retired Chief Justices and Judges at par with sitting the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court. Few of the States where such facilities may not be in force will seriously re-consider the matter and take a appropriate decision in the matter of such grant of medical facilities at par with sitting judges.
12. We also direct that such of the states where the allowances paid are lesser than the State of Andhra Pradesh, shall consider the necessity of an upward revision of such allowances at the appropriate stage and time.
13. Insofar as the State of Gujarat and Assam are concerned, though no counter affidavit(s) has been filed, at the hearing, a copy of the Government order dated 04.08.2015 on behalf of the State of Gujarat and Government Orders dated 7th February, 2015 & 10th November, 2014 on behalf of the State of Assam have been placed before us. The Said G.Os indicate what has been mentioned above. The same are accordingly taken on record.
14. The contempt petitions are also closed insofar as above-mentioned States are concerned.
State of Jammu & Kashmir
15. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it appears that while medical facilities at par with sitting judges is being provided, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- to meet the expenses of sevaks and secretarial assistance including telephone expenses is being provided only to the retired Chief Justices. The retired judges of the High Court are not provided any such allowances. Learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir submits that the matter insofar as the retired judges are concerned is under consideration of the State Government and a decision is expected to be taken within a period of eight weeks from today. The State while taking its decision in the matter will undoubtedly keep in mind the measures/schemes taken and framed by other States in this regard.
State of West Bengal
16. The State of West Bengal has not complied with the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014.
17. We have considered the stand taken by the State in its counter affidavit wherein the reason for non-implementation of the directions of this Court has been sought to be explained by stating that the Calcutta High Court (Administrative Side) has not cooperated in suggesting/formulating the scheme. We fail to see how the High Court would have role to play in this regard. In these circumstances, we could have initiated contempt proceeding against the concerned authority of the State Government for non-compliance of the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34. However, for the present, we refrain from doing so and instead grant four weeks’ time from today to the State to come up with an appropriate Scheme in accordance with the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment and order in Writ Petition (C) No. 521 of 2002 [P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India] and other connected matters.
State of Himachal Pradesh
18. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, the learned Advocate General has appeared in Court had submitted that the retired Chief justices and Judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court are being paid lump sum allowances in terms of the Government Notification dated 31st July, 2014 which is in conformity with the directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34. Having perused the said notification, we are of the view that the State of Himachal Pradesh should consider enhancement of the allowances at least to the level of what is being paid by the majority of the States i.e. Rs. 14,000/- for Chief Justices, Rs. 12,000/- for Hon’ble Judges and free telephone calls upto Rs. 1500/- in number. Insofar as medical facilities are concerned, it is stated by the learned Advocate General that the retired chief justices and judges of the Himachal Pradesh are at par with the sitting Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
19. The notifications placed before us are taken on record.
State of Jharkhand, Nagaland, Orissa, Jammu & Kashmir, West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh
20. The contempt petitions in respect of the above-mentioned States will now be listed after eight weeks.
State of Meghalaya, Manipur, Maharashtra, Goa, Mizoram Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunchal Pradesh, Telengana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Government of NCT of Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh, Kerala, Gujarat and Assam, U.T. of Chandigarh, Puducherry, U.T. of Lakshdweep, U.T. of Daman & Diu, U.T. of Dadar and Nagar Haveli, U.T. of Andaman and Nicobar Islands
21. The contempt petitions are disposed of in respect of above-mentioned States and Union Territories in terms of the above.
———
