Supreme Court - Daily Orders
P. Ramakrishnam Raju vs Union Of India Represneted By The ... on 21 August, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 685 OF 2016
P. Ramakrishnam Raju ..Petitioner
versus
Union of India ..Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 822/2016
WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 870/2016
WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 897/2016
O R D E R
1. Learned counsel for the Union of India states, that the letter issued by the Department of Justice in the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India dated 14.07.2016 has since been withdrawn, and as such, the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous. Relevant extract of the letter dated 28.11.2016, handed over to us in Court today, is reproduced below:
“I am directed to say that this Department's letter of even No. dated 14.7.2016 on the subject noted above stands withdrawn.
In continuation of this Department's letter of even number dated 13.4.2016 on the subject noted above, it is clarified that in compliance with the judgment dated 31.3.2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 521 of 2002 – P. Ramakrishnam Raju vs. Union of India and others regarding grant of revised pension to Part-I High Court Judges (elevated from the Bar) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by of the High Courts by adding 10 years Bar practice to PARVEEN KUMAR Date: 2017.08.22 17:31:15 IST actual qualifying service, the benefit of addition of Reason: ten years practice as an Advocate to the service as a Judge of High Court for the purpose of computing pension will be admissible to all Part-I High Court Judges. However, in respect of Part-I High Court 2 Judges retired prior to 1.4.2004, this benefit is to be reckoned from 1.4.2004.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners acknowledge the above factual and legal position.
3. In view of the above, the instant writ petition and connected matters are disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous.
…....................CJI [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR] NEW DELHI; ….....................J. AUGUST 21, 2017. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD] 3 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.1 SECTION X 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(s). 685/2016 P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REPRESNETED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW JUSTICE AND CRespondent(s) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 1/2016, FOR ON IA 2/2016) WITH W.P.(C) No. 822/2016 (X), W.P.(C) No. 870/2016 (X) W.P.(C) No. 897/2016 (X) Date : 21-08-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Ms. Promila, AOR in WC 685/2016 For Petitioner(s) Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR in WC 822/2016 For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR in WC 870/2016 For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, AOR in WC 897/2016 Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Madan M. Bora, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Madhvi Divan, Adv.
Mr. Merusagar Samantary, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv.
for Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The writ petitions stand disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous, in terms of the signed order.
(PARVEEN KUMAR) (RENUKA SADANA) AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
[signed order is placed on the file]