High Court Of Judica... v. Brij Mohan Gupta (De..., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

2003 INSC 29

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 137 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1999

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

U.U Lalit, S.S Shinde, V.N Raghupathy, K.B.S Rajan, Anil Kr. Sinha, P. Narasimhan and Naresh Kumar, Advocates, for the appearing parties.

Judges

Justice S.B. Sinha
Justice V.N. Khare
Dr. Justice A.R. Lakshmanan

Acts

Article 226 of the Constitution
Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Brij Mohan Gupta, born on 2 July 1939, was directly appointed from the Bar as a Judge of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay, and assumed office on 4 November 1988. Under ordinary circumstances:

He would complete ten years of service on 4 November 1998.
He would turn 58 on 2 July 1997 and 60 on 2 July 1999.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directives in the All India Judges’ Association cases, the Bombay High Court constituted a five-Judge committee to determine whether he should be permitted to serve until 60. The committee delivered an adverse report citing lack of integrity, poor reputation, and unsatisfactory judicial performance. Consequently, the High Court ordered his retirement with effect from 31 July 1997 (age 58).

Gupta challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court accepted his plea that Rule 10(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 entitled him to serve until he completed ten qualifying years. The High Court modified the retirement date to 4 November 1998 (age ≈ 59 years 4 months). The State appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Rule 10(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 survives, or stands displaced (“subrogated”), after the directions issued in All India Judges’ Association cases I and II regarding retirement age for judicial officers.
Whether the Bombay High Court erred in allowing Gupta to remain in service beyond 58 years solely to complete ten years of qualifying service for pension.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

Relying on All India Judges’ Association cases I (1992 1 SCC 119) and II (1993 4 SCC 288), counsel Mr. U. U. Lalit contended that Rule 10(3)(c) is overridden; therefore, the correct procedure is to review an officer’s suitability at 58. Only if found fit may the officer continue to 60. The committee’s adverse findings validly compelled retirement at 58.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (1992 1 SCC 119) (“Judges’ case I”)	Fixed retirement age of judicial officers at 60 with effect from 31-12-1992, subject to review mechanisms.	The Court held that this decision, together with Judges’ case II, had the effect of superseding Rule 10(3)(c) and required performance review at age 58.
All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (1993 4 SCC 288) (“Judges’ case II”)	Mandated five-Judge committees to assess officers approaching 58; only those found fit could serve to 60.	The Supreme Court found that the Bombay High Court followed this procedure; therefore, Gupta’s compulsory retirement at 58 was consistent with the precedent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that:

Judges’ cases I and II prescribe that where service rules set retirement below 60, continuation beyond 58 depends on a High Court committee’s assessment.
Rule 10(3)(c) merely grants direct recruits from the Bar an opportunity to earn pension by completing ten years, but those benefits became subject to the conditional extension regime established in Judges’ cases I and II. Hence, Rule 10(3)(c) is effectively overridden to that extent.
The Bombay High Court correctly convened a five-Judge committee, which unanimously found Gupta unfit. Therefore, ordering his retirement at 58 fully complied with Supreme Court directives.
The Single Judge’s decision allowing service until the ten-year mark was inconsistent with the binding precedent and had to be set aside.
Nonetheless, considering Gupta’s death on 17-March-2001 and “peculiar facts,” equitable relief was warranted: he should be deemed to have retired upon completing ten years of service, i.e., at roughly 58 years 6 months, thereby entitling his heirs to pensionary benefits.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF — The appeal is allowed to the extent that the Bombay High Court’s judgment is set aside; however, as an equitable measure, Gupta is deemed to have retired on completion of ten years of service, and all retiral benefits are to be paid accordingly.

Implications: The decision reaffirms that the conditional retirement regime created by All India Judges’ Association cases takes precedence over state pension rules for judicial officers. While providing individualized equitable relief, the Court does not establish a new legal standard beyond reinforcing existing precedent.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

High Court Of Judicature At Bombay Through Registrar And Another v. Brij Mohan Gupta (Dead) Through Lrs. And Another

Order

CA No. 137 of 1999

1. The respondent herein, Brij Mohan Gupta was born on 2-7-1939. He was directly appointed from the Bar as a Judge of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay (Maharashtra Higher Judicial Service). He assumed charge on 4-11-1988. In normal course, the respondent would have completed 10 years of service on 4-11-1998. He would have attained the age of 58 years on 2-7-1997 and the age of 60 years on 2-7-1999.

2. The High Court of Bombay, in view of the decision of this Court in All India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, (1993) 25 ATC 818 (hereinafter referred to as “Judges' case II”), appointed a committee to review the case of the respondent for giving him the benefit of continuity in service till the age of 60 years. The Committee made an adverse report against the respondent and recommended that he may be made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. The High Court, in view of the recommendation of the Committee, issued an order on 30-7-1997 retiring the respondent from service w.e.f 31-7-1997. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court.

3. The case of the respondent before the High Court was that under Rule 10(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, he was entitled to continue till completion of 10 years' qualifying service which was necessary to entitle him to get the benefit of Rule 53 of the Rules. The High Court accepted the said argument and held that the respondent would be entitled to continue in service until 4-11-1998 on which date he would have completed 10 years in service and as a result the respondent would be liable to retire from service when he actually would complete 59 years, 4 months and 2 days. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order stood modified.

4. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants are before us in appeal.

5. Mr U.U Lalit, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that in terms of Judges' case I (1992) 1 SCC 119, (1992) 19 ATC 42 and Judges' case II (1993) 4 SCC 288, (1993) 25 ATC 818 Rule 10(3)(c) stood subrogated therein and the High Court was justified in taking a decision on completion of the age of 58 years of the respondent to find out whether he would be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years. We find merit in his contention.

6. In Judges' case I (1992) 1 SCC 119, (1992) 19 ATC 42 a direction was issued by this Court to all the States and the Union Territories, including the State of Maharashtra, to fix the age of retirement at 60 years w.e.f 31-12-1992 in respect of members of the judicial service. In Judges' case II (1993) 4 SCC 288, (1993) 25 ATC 818 again this Court held that where there is no rule providing for the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years, a committee of the High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service Rules applicable to judicial officers; that those who will not be found fit and eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 years by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement; and that the exercise should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58 years even in case where earlier the age of superannuation was less than 58 years.

7. In terms of these directions, the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts were required to set up appropriate committees of five Hon'ble Judges to look into the service records of the judicial officer concerned, so as to consider as to whether he should be allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years. The said procedure was followed in the instant case.

8. The five-Judge Committee looked into the records of the respondent and opined:

“The Committee has considered the annual confidential reports of Shri Gupta for the last five years i.e since 1992. He lacks integrity. He does not enjoy good reputation. His behaviour with the members of the Bar and public is unsatisfactory. He is rated as a poor Judge. The SID record shows that in File No. SID/BY/34/93, the Disciplinary Committee has, on 29th March, issued a warning informing him that he should be more careful while passing an order in future.

Considering the material placed before the Committee and the overall performance of Shri Gupta, the Committee is of the opinion that he is not suitable to be continued, his performance is not up to the mark and, therefore, he does not deserve grant of benefit of increase of retirement age of 60 years.”

9. In view of the said report, the respondent was made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years i.e 30-7-1997.

10. Rule 10(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is applicable only to direct appointees from the Bar. By reason thereof, the benefit of pension has been extended to them so as to enable them to complete the minimum qualifying service of ten years subject to the outer limit of 60 years of age. The normal age of superannuation of such an officer would either be completion of ten years of service or 55 years, whichever is earlier. In that view of the matter, the respondent would have reached the age of superannuation on attaining the age of 55 years. He, however, in view of the benefit conferred in terms of Judges' case, as referred to hereinbefore, was to retire at the age of 60 years but such benefit was subject to the conditions laid down therein. Only in the event the age of superannuation of the judicial officers is 60 years under the Service Rules, the question of review of his performance on attaining the age of 58 years would not arise; but when under the Service Rules applicable to the judicial officers the age of superannuation is 58 years or below, he would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment, in which event the limitations of applicability thereof would also squarely apply.

11. In our view, the exercise of setting up a committee by the Chief Justice, the recommendation made by the Committee and also finally the administrative order passed by the High Court, were strictly in terms of Judges' case I (1992) 1 SCC 119, (1992) 19 ATC 42 and Judges' case II (1993) 4 SCC 288, (1993) 25 ATC 818. In fact, by virtue of Judges' case I (1992) 1 SCC 119, (1992) 19 ATC 42 and Judges' case II (1993) 4 SCC 288, (1993) 25 ATC 818 Rule 10(3)(c) stood subrogated. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment under challenge is not in conformity with the aforesaid decisions and is liable to be set aside.

12. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the fact that the original respondent has expired on 17-3-2001, we direct that he may be held to have retired on completion of 10 years of service and in that view of the matter, all retiral benefits would be payable in accordance with law. We have taken this view as in the event the respondent was allowed to complete ten years of his service, he would have retired at the age of 58 years six months only.

13. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.

CA No. 138 of 1999

14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appeal is rendered infructuous. It is dismissed as such.

High Court Of Judica... v. Brij Mohan Gupta (De...