(Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Kudrat Sandhu ______________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India and Anr. ___________________________ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279 of 2017, decided on August 21, 2018
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 558 of 2017 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 561 of 2017 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 2017 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1016 of 2017 With, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 788 of 2017, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 925 of 2017, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1098 of 2017, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1129 of 2017, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 33 of 2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 205 of 2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 467 of 2018, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 49 of 2018 and Transferred Case (Civil) No. 51 of 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.:—
1. By an order dated 20 March 2018, we had clarified the previous order dated 9 February 2018. Clause (iii) of the clarifications is relevant and reads as follows:
“(iii) The tenure of the Chairperson and the Judicial/Administrative/Expert/Technical Members of all the Tribunals shall be for a period of five years or the maximum age that was fixed/determined under the old Acts and Rules;”
2. On 16 July 2018, this Court issued the following directions in regard to the age of the superannuation of Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal:
“At this juncture, we may note that there is some confusion with regard to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as regards the age of superannuation. We make it clear that the person selected as Member of the ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years.”
CESTAT:
3. In IA 113281 of 2018, the applicant is an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of West Bengal, who has been selected as Member (Judicial) in the CESTAT. The notification of appointment of six officers who have been selected as Member (Judicial), including the applicant, stipulates that they shall hold office for a period of five years or till attaining the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier “in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 20 March 2018”. A member of the judicial service would have ordinarily continued until the date of superannuation in the state judicial service, subject to the service rules. It would be manifestly inappropriate to adopt an interpretation as a result of which, upon assuming office as Member (Judicial) in CESTAT the officer will have a tenure which will expire after five years, if it falls prior to attaining the age of 62 years. We, accordingly, are of the view that the clarification issued for the ITAT in the order dated 20 March 2018 needs to be reiterated in the case of the members of the CESTAT, which we do. We clarify that a person selected as Member of the CESTAT will continue until the age of 62 years while a person holding the post of President shall continue until the age of 65 years.
AFT:
4. Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 65 years. Chairpersons who have been former Judges of the Supreme Court shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 70 years.
CAT:
5. In the case of the Central Administrative Tribunal, we clarify that the old rules/provisions shall continue to apply.
6. We direct the Union government to file a status report before this Court within a period of two weeks setting out position with respect to each Tribunal, including the vacancies and the stage of the selection process. IA No. 113281 of 2018 is disposed of accordingly.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279/2017
Kudrat Sandhu _____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India & Anr ____________________________ Respondent(s)
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 558/2017 (PIL-W)
W.P.(C) No. 561/2017 (PIL-W)
W.P.(C) No. 640/2017 (X)
W.P.(C) No. 1016/2017 (PIL-W)
W.P.(C) No. 788/2017 (X)
W.P.(C) No. 925/2017 (PIL-W)
W.P.(C) No. 1098/2017 (PIL-W)
W.P.(C) No. 1129/2017 (PIL-W)
W.P.(C) No. 33/2018 (PIL-W)
W.P.(C) No. 205/2018 (X)
W.P.(C) No. 467/2018 (X)
T.C.(C) No. 49/2018 (XVI-A)
T.C.(C) No. 51/2018
Date : 21-08-2018 This matter was called on for pronouncement of order today.
For Petitioner Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
Mr. V.B. Saharya, Adv.
Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Jatin Ghuliani, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR
Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR
Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham, Adv.
Mr. Arun Monga, Adv.
Ms. Divya Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Marcellina Kalikotey, Adv.
Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR
Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Adv.
Mr. Karan Batura, Adv.
Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR
Mr. Anand Varma, AOR
Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Adv. Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv.
Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Swami, AOR
Mr. V. K. Verma, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR
Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, AOR
Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR
Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR
Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR
For Respondents Ms. S.S. Shamshery, Adv.
Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Adv.
Mr. Harish V. Shekhar, Adv.
Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv.
Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR
7. Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud pronounced the order of the Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and His Lordship.
8. In terms of the signed reportable order, I.A. No. 113281/2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 279/2017 is disposed of.
9. I.A. No. 105561/2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 279/2017 also stands disposed of.
———
