LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus M.C. DESAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
UNION OF !NOIA AND ANR.
v.
M.C. DESAI AND ORS.
OCTOBER 111, 1995
B
[S.C. AGARWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .l.l.J
Se1vice La1v :
High Court Judge's Rules, 1956-Rule 2:-Death-cum-Retirement
C
Gratuity benefit-To the Judges of High Cowt who retired p1ior to October I,
1974-Seivice less tha11 7 years-De11ial of the be11efit-Ad-hoc relief-Per-
111itted under Govenunent order-Granted to sonic and denied to
ot!zm~Held, Judges e11titled to the benefit a11d the ad hoc relief-Howeve1;
those Judges who have not put in Se1vice of 7 years but re11dered Service for
four years-Held not entitled to as Deoki Nandan
1s case was subsequently
D reversed-All India Se1vices (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958.
Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity was denied to the Respondents who
had retired as judges of the High Court prior to October, 1, 1974 Ad-hoc
relief on pension permitted by Government order dated August 29, 1977
E
was paid lo some of the respondents but denied to other Respondents.
The A.llahabad High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the Respon-
dents, held that Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity was payable to all the
respondents. The High Court further directed payment of ad-hoc relief to
the Respondents. With Regard to respondent No. 9 the High Court held
F
that he can avail the 11ensinnary henelit, even though he had not 11ut in
service of 7 years. Reliance was placed on the earlier judgment of the said
High Court in Dcoki Na11dan Agarwal v. Union of India.
G
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : l. In view of Rule 2 of the High Court Judges' Rules, 1956
the High Court Judges who had retired prior to October, 1974 were also
entitled to avail the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity benefit that was avail-
able to the ollicers of the Indian Administrative Service in the rank of the
Secretary to the State Government who is governed by the All India
H
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958. The High Court was
202
UNION OF INDIA v. M.C. DESAI
203
justified in giving directions regarding payment of Ad-hoc relief to respo·n-
A
dents. (204-F, 205-A]
UOI v. Gumam Singh, [1982] 3 SCR 7110, relied on.
2. Since the Judgment of the High Court in ( Dcoki Naill/an Agmwal)
v. Union of India has been reversed by this Court respondent no. 9, who
B
had .served for six years and five months as a Judge_ of the High Court was
not entitled to pensionary benefit. [2115-C-E]
Union of India v. Dcoki Nanda11 Aganval, [1991] 3 SCR 873, referred
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3715 of
1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.88 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 7557 ofl987.
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, P. Parmeswaran, A. Subba
Rao and C.B. Babu for the Appellants.
Salish Chandra. (Raja Ram Agarwal, Ms. Lalita Kohli,) for Manoj
c
D
Swamp & Co. and Madan Lokur for the Respondents.
E
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Having regard to the office report dated September 12, 1995 the
application for substitution of legal representatives of respondent Nos. 1
and 8 is dismissed for non-prosecution. As regards respondent No. 10 \Ve
F
find that she was not impleaded as a party when the special leave petition
was filed in 1988 and an application was submitted for impleading her as
a party on April 27, 1995 and before that date respondent No. 10 had died.
An application has been filed to bring on record her legal representatives.
No steps have been taken for service of' the substitution application on the
legal representatives. The said applications for impleadment of respondent G
No. 10 as well-as substitution are also dismissed for non-prosecution~ As
regards respondent No. 2, Mr. S.K. Verma we find that in the impugned
Judgment of the High Court it is mentioned that Mr. S.K. Verma expired
on M_ay, 9, 1988 leaving Smt. Nirn1alct Verma as his legal representative
and that the application for substitution of Smt. Nirmala Verma as the legal H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
representative of Mr. S.K. Verma was allowed by the High Court on May
12, 1.988. S111t. Nirmala Vernia, ho\Vcvcr, has not been i1npleadcd as a party
in the appeal and Mr. S.K. Verma, (who was dead) was impleaded as
respondent No. 2. The appeal filed against Mr. S.K. Verma, respondent
No. 2 is, therefore, not n1aintainablc. The appeal against rcSJ1')ndcnt Nos.
B
c
I and 8 \viii stand dismissed as having abated and as regards Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.