LAWS(MPH)-1993-10-45

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On October 24, 1993
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE review petitions have been filed by the Union of India and various States raising general objections as well as objections to the specific directions given by this Court vide our judgment dated 13th November, 1991 to improve the service conditions of the members of the subordinate judiciary in the country. The general objections which are common in all the petitions may be summarised as follows:

(2.) TO the specific directions given by this Court, the objections are as follows:

(3.) AT the outset, it is necessary to note that at the time of the hearing of the Writ Petition, positive representation was given to the Union of India and all the States and the Union Territories by issuing notices to them, they were represented through their counsel. Some of them, viz., the States of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh. Rajasthan. Bihar, Haryana, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Mizoram, Tripura and Goa did not file their counters and took the stand that they would abide by whatever is ultimately decided by the Court. The Union of India filed a counter stating that the issues involved fell within the dominion of the States. Some of those which filed counters, viz., the States of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Punjab, Karnataka, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Sikkim placed their point of view while others objected to any directions being given. The objection to the enhancement of the superannuation age was mainly on the ground that the superannuation age of the judges fixed in their States was on par with that fixed for the members of the other services. Similarly, the Judges' demand for rent -free accommodation was objected to also on the ground that the rent -free accommodation was not given to the members of the other services and that the house rent allowance given was sufficient to meet the needs of the Judges. The demand for conveyance to the District Judges was, however, not seriously objected to by any of the States.