LexHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH REGISTRAR AND ANR. versus BRIJ. MOHAN GUPTA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH
B
c
REGISTRAR AND ANR.
v.
BRIJ. MOHAN GUPTA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.
JANUARY 23, 2003
[V.N. KHARE, CJI., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]
Service Law:
Judiciary-Higher Judicial Service-Continuing of an HJ.S. Officer in
service upto 60 years of age-Maharashtra Higher Judiciary Service-Officer
not completing 10 years' qualifying service at the age of superannuation-
Consideration for continuing the officer in service till 60 years-Committee
constituted by High Court as per Judge's Case-II after scrutinising service
D record of the officer recommending his retirement at 58 years-Order of
retirement issued-Writ petition by officer-High Court allowing the claim of
officer that under r.10{3)(c) he was entitled to continue till completion of JO
years' qualifying service in order to get benefit of r.53-Held, by virtue of
Judges Case-I and Judges Case-II, r.10(3)(c) stood subrogated-Only in the
event the age of superannuation of judicial officers is 60 years under the
E service Rules, the question of review of his performance on attaining the age
of 58 years would not arise-But when under the relevant service Rules the
age of superannuation is 58 years or below, the officer would be entitled to
the benefit of judgment in Judges Case-II in which event the limitations of
applicability thereof would also squarely apply-Recommendation of the
p committee and administrative order passed by High Court were strictly in
terms of Judges Case-I and Judges Case-II-Judgment of High Court set
aside-However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
officer held to have retired on completion of I 0 years, service and retiral
benefits would be payable accordingly-Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982-rr.10(3) (c} and 53 ..
G
H
All India Judges' Association and Ors, v. Union of India and Ors.,
[1993) 4 SCC 288 (Judges Case-II) and Al/ India Judges' Association and
Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 119 (Judges Case-I), relied
on.
532
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY v. BRIJ. MOHAN GUPTA
533
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982-rr. IO(J)(c) and 53- A
In view of Judges Case-I and Judges case-II. r.10(3)(c) stood subrogated
All India Judges' Association and Ors.· v. Union of India and Ors.
(1992) 1 SCC 119 and All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 288, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 137/1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.98 of the High Court of
Bombay in WP 1210/97.
B
U.U. Lalit, S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, K.B.S. Rajan, Anil Kumar C
Sinha, P. Narasimhan and Naresh Kumar for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.A. No. 137/1999
D
The respondent herein Brij Mohan Gupta was born on 2nd July, 1939.
He was directly appointed from the Bar as a Judge of City Civil & Sessions
Court, Bombay (Maharashtra Higher Judicial Service). He assumed charge
on 4th November, 1988. In normal course, the respondent would have
completed I 0 years of service on 4th November, 1998. He would have attained
the age of 58 years on 2nd July, 1997 and the age of 60 years on 2nd July. E
1999.
The High Court of Bombay, in view of the decision of this Court in All
India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1993] 4 SCC
288 (hereinafter referred to as "Judges Case-II"), appointed a Committee to
review the case of the respondent for giving him the benefit of continuity in F
service till the age of 60 years. The Committee made an adverse report
against the respondent and recommended that he may be made to retire on
attaining the age of58 years. The High Court, in view of the recommendation
of the Committee, issued an order on 30th July, 1997, retiring the respondent
from service w.e.f. 31st July, 1997. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition G
under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court.
The case of the respondent before the High Court was that under Rule
10(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, he was
entitled to continue till completion of 10 years' qualifying service which was
necessary to entitle him to get the benefit of Rule 53 of the Rules. The High H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2003] I S.C.R.
A Court accepted the said argument and held that the respondent would be
entitled to continue in service until 4th November, 1998 on whExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.