D R KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. By virtue of warrant dated 15.10.1997 issued by the President of India the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Judge of this Court. Alongwith the petitioner, three others including Shri D. Jain were appointed as Additional Judges of this Court by similar orders of the President of India. The swearing in of the petitioner alongwith others was postponed to 19.10.1979. The reason for postponement was that Shri J.D. Jain, who also from Higher Judicial Service and was senior to the petitioner in that service, had to deliver a judgment, which was delivered on 18.10.1979. Thus the petitioner though appointed as an Additional Judge on 15.10.1979 was able to assume charge of his new office only on 19.10.1979, thereby losing four days' of service as a Judge of High Court. On attainiing the age of 62 years, the petitioner retired as Judge of the High Court on 16.10.1985. From the date of assuming the charge to the date of retirement, the petitioner served for a total period of five years 11 months and 28 days as a High Court Judge, namely, two days short of six completed years of service as Judge of the High Court.

(2.) The petitioner's grievance is against the order (Annexure-C) dated 21.3.1991 conveying to the Registrar of this Court rejection of the petitioner's representation either for condonation of two days service or for addition of the said period to enable him to earn pension for six completed years of service as High Court Judge.

(3.) The petitioner's challenge to the aforementioned order is on the ground that the reliance placed on Section 16 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in refusing to condone the shortfall of two days is misconceived and without application of mind. It is alleged that the petitioner had not requested for addition of two days but requested for condonation of two days shortfall, which would have the effect of completing six years of service as a Judge of High Court, which otherwise he would have completed had he been administered oath of his office on 15.10.1979 but for the postponement, which was not due to any reason on his part but for reason beyond his control. In the alternative, it is alleged that assuming that Section 16 of the Act is applicable, refusal on the part of the respondent to add the said period is an arbitrary exercise of power. In a large number of cases addition of service has been allowed and the additional period has been considered for the purpose of pension. Denial of such benefit to the petitioner is thus discriminatory.