VIHAR DURVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. The petitioner who is a Chartered Accountant by profession has raised several issues concerning the infrastructure of the judiciary in the State.

(2.) Before we go to the details, we must refer to the prayers. The first prayer is for seeking a direction to establish additional 867 Courts in the State of Maharashtra. There is a prayer for setting up 20 fast track Courts for exclusively trying the cases of senior citizens, differently abled persons and marginalised sections of the society. In the petition, there are averments regarding necessity of establishing adequate number of Special Courts in the State for exclusively trying the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, there is a prayer seeking a direction to establish 48 Special Courts in the State. The petitioner has contended that there is a need to have more family Courts in the State. Therefore, there is a prayer made that there should be additional 17 posts of family Court judges in the city of Mumbai, 5 in Pune and 5 at Nagpur. There is a prayer for establishment of Courts of District Judges and Senior Civil Judges at the specific places in various Taluka places mentioned in prayer clauses (e) to (i). There is also a prayer made for establishing a District Court for the newly created Nandurbar Revenue District. Another important prayer in the petition is regarding furnishing a road map for the establishment of Courts which are subject matter of specific prayers in the petition. Pending the petition, another issue was raised in this PIL concerning pension payable to the judicial officers in the State. It is pointed out that the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) which was introduced by a Government Resolution was applied to the judicial officers who were appointed on or after 1 st November, 2005. It was pointed out that the new pension scheme (DCPS) as compared to the old pension scheme which was applicable to those who were in judicial service as on 31st October 2005 is not at all beneficial to the Judicial Officers and in fact as a result of applying the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers appointed after 31st October 2005, deduction of 10% of the salary was being made as a contribution to DCPS. Accordingly, prayers (m) and (n) were incorporated for challenging the applicability of DCPS.

(3.) We may note here that as regards the controversy regarding the applicability of the new pension scheme (DCPS) to the judicial officers, the issue is finally decided by this Court by the Judgment and Order dated 11th August, 2017 by holding that the judicial Officers appointed after 31st October 2005 will be governed by the old Pension scheme. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of Maharashtra preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3146 of 2017. By an order dated 1 st December, 2017 passed in the said SLP, this PIL was transferred to the Apex Court. However, by further order dated 27th March, 2018 the Apex Court disposed of the said SLP without disturbing the order dated 11th August, 2017 and the present petition was again ordered to be re-transferred to this Court. While re-transferring the petition, the Apex Court added a rider that this Court should not deal with the issues which have been referred to the commission headed by Shri Justice Venkatarama Reddy for resolution.