Allahabad High Court
Association Of Retired Supreme Court ... vs Union Of India And Others on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 42 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38595 of 2011 Petitioner :- Association Of Retired Supreme Court And H.C.Judges And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Yadav,Shashi Nandan,Vikram D. Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.(2011/1050),Ashish Mishra,Yashwant Verma Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 3 of 2022.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
Petitioners are Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad. The instant writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 06.01.2011 and further seeking direction to the response to enhance the amount payable to the retired Supreme Court/High Court Judges of this Court towards domestic help and further extend the benefit to the widows of the Judges. Further, prayer was made to provide security and engagement of ministerial staff.
The parity was being claimed by the Association on the strength of remuneration granted to the similarly situated persons by the State of Andhra Prdadsh. It appears that the matter was carried to the Supreme Court being Writ Petition (C) No. 521 of 2022, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and directed the respective State Governments to consider and implement the scheme as provided by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment 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."
It appears that the directions were not complied, consequently, Contempt Petition came to be filed being Contempt Petition No. 528 of 2015 (M. Ramachandran v. Rajiv Mehrishi and Others). Several State Governments, including, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed their counter affidavits with an undertaking that they would comply the directions. The relevant portion of the order is extracted :
"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"
Learned counsel for the petitioner in the afore-noted backdrop has filed an amendment application seeking amendment of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, claiming parity as is being provided by the State of Andhra Pradesh through a subsequent scheme dated 19.1.2022. The scheme / rules provides enhanced amount to retired Chief Justices/Judges of the High Courts for engaging domestic help, driver etc. which has been considerably raised as reflected in Rule 7 and Rule 9 depending upon the status of the Judges. It is submitted that several State Governments have, accordingly, amended / raised the remuneration etc. On specific query, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the scheme pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court is already there and the amount is being duly paid by the State Government. However, the quantum of amount towards the benefits being granted to the retired Judges has not been revised since then. It is submitted that the matter for revision, if any, is to be considered at the highest level.
Be that as it may, in order to expedite the matter, before any further order is passed, it would be appropriate that the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of Uttar Pradesh, shall appear along with the records and apprise the Court of the stand of the State Government in the matter.
Amendment application is allowed. Learned counsel for petitioner to file amended copy of the writ petition.
List on 12.01.2023.
Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Akram