GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS versus ALL INDIA YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (REGO.) & ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 555 · Decided: 29-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 555 
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS 
V. 
ALL INDIA YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (REGO.) & 
ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 498 of 2009) 
JANUARY 29, 2009 
A 
B 
.~ 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJ. AND P. SATHASIVAM & 
.. 
,,_ 
J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: 
c 
Rule 26 - Direct recruits - Weightage for practice in the 
Bar, for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits -
Held: It is appropriate that 10 years of practice at the Bar or 
such other number of years whichever is less could be added 
while computing pension and other retiralbenefits - However, 
D 
such direct recruit should actually work for minimum of ten 
years in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and then retire to 
be eligible for minimum pension - Government of NCT of 
Delhi to suitably insert Rule 26(B) to the Rules - Service Law 
- Pension - Weightage. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 498 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.2006 of the High 
Court at Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.No. 21211 of 2005. · 
F 
Brijender Chahar, Sadhna Sandhu, Om Prakash and Anil ' 
Katiyar for the Petitioner. 
· 
Surya Kant, Shailja Sinha, Maninder Singh, Gaufav 
Sharma and Sumeet Bhatia for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
G 
2. This appeal has been filed by the Government of NCT 
H 
555 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R 
A 
of Delhi against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 
24th February, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 212·1 i of 
2005, whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed 
by respondent No.1 herein. 
B 
Facts: 
3. Respondent No.1 preferred a Writ Petition being 
W.P.(C) No.21211 of 2005 before the High Court of Delhi, 
inter a/ia, seeking a mandamus to the appellants herein that 
the actual period of practice at the Bar subject to a maximum 
of 15 years, should be added to the total pensionable service 
C 
while computing the pension and other retiral benefits in the 
case of a direct recruitee to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. 
The High Court, after hearing both sides, by its impugned 
judgment held that the prayers made by the writ petitioner 
(respondent No.1 herein) were reasonable and directed that 
D 
the Rule 26(B) be inserted in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service 
Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') and weightage of fifteen 
years of practice or such other number of years of practice at 
the Bar whichever is less be given to the direct recruits while 
computing their pension and other retiral benefits, thereby 
E 
allowed the writ petition. 
4. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed 
by the Government of NCT of Delhi challenging the aforesaid 
decision of the Delhi High Court. 
5. We have heard learned counsel for the State and 
F 
learned counsel for the Lawyers Association and High Court 
of Delhi. 
6. In the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, direct recruitment 
to 25% of posts are made from amongst the members of the 
G 
Bar who have completed seven years practice at the Bar. The 
minimum age for entry is 35 years and the maximum age is 
45 years. The main contention of the writ petitioner (respondent 
No.1 herein) before the High Court was to include the fifteen 
years' practice at the Bar. If q candidate join sat the age of 
H 
35 years and retires at the age of 60 years, if not elevated to 
... 
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. v. ALL INDIA 557 
YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (REGO.) & ANR. 
~ 
_,-l 
the Bench of the High Court, he would not be able to get full 
A 
pension as for getting full pension one should have 33 years 
of service whereas the total service rendered by a member who 
joins at the age of 35 years will be 25 years of service. The 
High Court, on the administrative side, brought this fact to the 
notice of the government by writing a letter in the year 1987. 
B 
Though repeated reminders were sent to the government, no 
decision was taken by the Government till the end of 2005 and 
·-
" 
only on 02nd February, 2006 by a letter, Government has 
indicatE7d that it was agreeable to give weightage of 7 years 
of practice at the Bar while computing the pension and other c 
retiral benefits for direct recruits. 
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that 
the reason why government has agreed to give weightage of 
7 years practice at the Bar is that because in the case of direct 
' 
recruitments to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, a member 
D 
shoul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.