BRAHM SWAROOP AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HERAD counsel. In public interest two learned counsel of this Court have preferred this petition complaining that judicial officers are not getting fair deal in the matter of allotment of residential accommodation at Gwalior. They have complained that the Executive is unmindful of the constitutional imperatives that judiciary is an independent wing of the Government and to protect judicial independence is the duty of all the wings of the Government for proper functioning of the judiciary the officers posted at Gwalior should suffer no discrimination and they should get this 'due share' in the matter of allotment of Government Accommodation. Reliance is placed on a latest decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and Ors., (1992) ISCC 119.

(2.) HOWEVER , there is another special feature of this case to which we must pay attention because on one side allotment rules (which are in fact executive directives) are cited and relied on and on the other side reliance is placed on Annexure P -3 which is a special directive of the State Government issued on 224 -1992 under the signature of Special Secretary to Government of M. P., Home Department. Government Advocate, Shri Roman, also referred to us another letter bearing the date 12 -10 -1987 which is filed on behalf of the respondents along with a copy of the relevant Rules aforesaid and a chart showing list of Government bungalows available for allotment at Gwalior.

(3.) THE complaint which is made to us is that although there is clear directive in Annexure P -3 (dated 22 -4 -1982), which followed on a move made by the High Court for the judicial officers being given 'due share of the non -earmarked residential accommodations' they are not getting their 'due share'.