Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Justice M. Vijayaraghavan vs Union Of India on 11 August, 2020

     ITEM NO.102                            Court No. 4                   SECTION X
                                   (Through Video Conferencing)

                              S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No. 993/2017

     JUSTICE M. VIJAYARAGHAVAN                                       Petitioner(s)

                                              VERSUS

     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                           Respondent(s)

     ([ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES]
     [ REMAIN ON BOARD ]
     (With IA No. 136171/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)

     WITH

     W.P.(C) No. 1048/2017 (X)

     W.P.(C) No. 548/2018 (X)

     W.P.(C) No. 911/2018 (X)
     (FOR ADMISSION)
     (With IA No. 18577/2020 - ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION
     PARTIES and IA No. 107836/2018 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS and
     IA No. 107837/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

     W.P.(C) No. 86/2019 (X)
     (With IA No. 7729/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

     SLP(C) No. 7246/2019 (IV-B)
     (I.A. NO. 163293 (APPLICATION FOR DETAGGING ) TO BE LISTED BEFORE
     HON'BLE COURT.)
     (IA No. 163293/2019 - APPLICATION FOR TAGGING/DETAGGING)

     W.P.(C) No. 244/2019 (X)
     (FOR ADMISSION)

     W.P.(C) No. 1542/2019 (X)
     (FOR ADMISSION)

     Date : 11-08-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
Date: 2020.08.11
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
18:16:26 IST
Reason:                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
                         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE


                                                                                      1
W.P.(C) No. 993/2017 etc.

For Parties
                       Mr. S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv.
                       Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, AOR
                       Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv.

                       Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR

                       Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
                       Mr. Naman Khamboj, Adv.

                       Mr. B. Balaji, AOR

                       Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR
                       Mr. Sulabh Rewari, Adv.
                       Mr. Manoj Goel, Adv.

                       Mr.   R. S. Suri, ASG.
                       Ms.   V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.
                       Mr.   Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv.
                       Ms.   Gargi Khanna, Adv.
                       Mr.   Anmol Chandan, Adv.
                       Mr.   S. K. Singhania, Adv.
                       Mr.   Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

                       Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

                       Mr.   P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.
                       Mr.   Parikshit Ahuja, Adv.
                       Ms.   Praveena Bisht, Adv.
                       Ms.   Vindhya Mehra, Adv.
                       Mr.   Madhur Jhavar, Adv.
                       Mr.   Kartik Lahoti, Adv.
                       Mr.   Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.
                       Mr.   Divyakant Lahoti, AOR

                       Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
                       Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, Adv.

                       Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AAG.
                       Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR

                       Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

                       Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR

                       Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR

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

On 09.01.2019, the then Chief Justice’s Bench passed 2 W.P.(C) No. 993/2017 etc. the following order in these matters:

“These petitions highlight the perceived inequalities in the matter of payment of pension to Service Judges as compared to Bar Judges following the decision of this Court in P. Ramakrishnam Raju vs. Union of India and Others (2014) 12 SCC 1.
Before we examine the contentions advanced, we would like the Department of Justice, Government of India, to examine the matter and place its views before us.
The other connected aspect that may be considered by the Department of Justice is the difference in pension paid to Service Judges appointed to the High Court who come from two different streams i.e. direct recruit District Judges and promotee District Judges. All the above will be done within a period of six weeks when the matter will be listed for hearing again.” Thereafter, we find that in Writ Petition (C)No. 643 of 2015, which is the All India Judges Association case, a series of questions have been posed by the Court and the question relating to pay pension and allowances of judicial officers has come up before this Court and is awaiting decision. Mr. P. S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel, has also been assisting the P. Venkatarama Reddi’s commission and therefore, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Supreme Court as well by this Court.
In the fitness of things, therefore, this batch of matters may be tagged to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643 of 2015.
            (NIDHI AHUJA)                         (NISHA TRIPATHI)
               AR-cum-PS                           BRANCH OFFICER


                                                                                3