Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1995 DIGILAW 1109 (SC)

All India Judges Association v. Union of India

1995-09-22

A.M.AHMADI, S.C.SEN

body1995
JUDGMENT : ANDHRA PRADESH 1. This is in continuation of our order dated 7.9.95. Insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned it is now brought to our notice that a sum of Rs.1.25 crores has been allotted towards library allowance to the Subordinate Courts in Andhra Pradesh and the said amount has been placed at the disposal of the High Court. The learned ASG further states that in the next financial year the Government proposes to place a further amount of Rs.25 lacs at the disposal of the High Court for this purpose and for updating the libraries. 2. Insofar as residential houses are concerned we are told that the State of Andhra Pradesh has issued orders and by G.O.M.S.No.275, HOME (COURT A)DEPARTMENT dated 14.9.95 have issued guidelines for securing private residential accommodation for judicial officers who cannot be provided Government accommodation on account of the paucity of such accommodation. The guidelines indicate the standard of accommodation to which judicial officers functioning at different levels in the heirarchy would be entitled to. The stratification between the standard of accommodation for District Judges and Additional District Judges does not appeal to us. We put it to the learned ASG and he after consulting the Secretary of Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh sated that the said stratification would be done away with and both District Judges and Additional District Judges would be treated at par for residential accommodation as per the standard prescribed for District Judges. He further stated that District Judges who are in the scale of pay equivalent to that of a Secretary in the Government of Andhra Pradesh will be entitled to the same standard of accommodation to which the Secretary is entitled. As far as maximum limit of the rental is concerned the learned ASG stated that this is in the nature of a board guideline but in areas where it is not possible to secure accommodation of the standard to which the judicial officers entitled under the aforesaid G.O.M.S. on the recommendation made by the District Judge, relaxation will be considered without loss of time. 3. In regard to vehicles we have made it clear to the learned ASG that the direction to provide judicial officers with vehicles and pool vehicles was essential to ensure their dignity and status and not with a view to adding to the emoluments. 3. In regard to vehicles we have made it clear to the learned ASG that the direction to provide judicial officers with vehicles and pool vehicles was essential to ensure their dignity and status and not with a view to adding to the emoluments. That is the reason why we are not inclined to the suggestion to provide them with a monthly cash allowance. The learned ASG states that while all the District Judges/C.J.Ms. have been provided with vehicles (if anyone is left out he would be provided with one shortly), for the rest of the judicial officers he states that funds would be placed at the disposal of the High Court to enable the purchase of vehicles and, in the meantime, the present arrangement of hiring vehicles will continue. He further states that the funds will be made available to the High Court within a period of 8 to 10 weeks. GUJARAT. 4. The learned counsel for the State of Gujarat says that on the last occasion she had mentioned that chief Judicial Magistrates had been provided with independent vehicles by that statement was not stricto senso accurate, in that, according to her they have been included in the pool vehicles because the High Court had communicate that they were not assigned any inspection duty and, therefore, they were not provided with independent vehicles. They were added to the list of officers entitled to the facility of pool transport. GUWAHATI: 5. There is a complaint received may be or may not be genuine stating that from the funds made available to purchase vehicles for Chief Judicial Magistrates by the Government of Assam certain Maruti 1000 cars were purchased by the High Court but instead of allotting them to the Chief Judicial Magistrate they have been allotted to High court Judges and the old cars have been diverted to the Chief Judicial Magistrates. There is also a provision made for minor repairs between Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- in High Court approved garagas. We would like the Registrar of the High Court to clarify this position and also the counsel for the State of Assam who is present before us to ascertain the facts and inform this court about the safe within four weeks. Letter to" go ton the Registrar of the High Court within two days. KARNATAKA: 6. We would like the Registrar of the High Court to clarify this position and also the counsel for the State of Assam who is present before us to ascertain the facts and inform this court about the safe within four weeks. Letter to" go ton the Registrar of the High Court within two days. KARNATAKA: 6. Counsel for the State of Karnataka states he too has a clarification to made that Chief Judicial Magistrates in the State of Karnataka are not entrusted with inspection duty and have been, therefore, not provided with independent vehicles but would be considered as entitled to being accommodated in pool vehicles. WE take note of this clarification. I.A. Nos. 13,14,15,16,17,18 and LA.s.7-11 IN WP.1022: 7. This Court by the order of May 10, 1995 had directed the legal assistants to state on affidavit before the Rajasthan Public Service Commission within a week the precise nature of work done by them is legal assistants. Counsel for the said applicant states that he had filed the affidavit and subsequent thereto the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has stated that they do not possess the requisite experience of three years practice and, therefore, their application remains rejected. We think that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has not correctly appreciated the order of May, 10, 1995. What this court wanted to know from that body was the precise nature of work, in other words, the job chart of legal assistants regardless of their eligibility. That is the precise issue which is before this Court is to determine the question of their eligibility on the basis of the precise nature of work done by them as legal assistants. To put it differently one of them, namely, Sunil Kumar Goel has stated that the nature of his duties include regular appearance in cases in Civil and Labour Courts as well as the High court and Educational Tribunal for and on behalf of the Government department to which he was attached. We would like the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to verify the same and let us know what was the precise nature of work which the legal assistants were required to do prior to this Court's judgment in the All India Judges Association case. As the matter is pending since some time the Rajasthan Public Service Commission may expedite the process. We would like the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to verify the same and let us know what was the precise nature of work which the legal assistants were required to do prior to this Court's judgment in the All India Judges Association case. As the matter is pending since some time the Rajasthan Public Service Commission may expedite the process. A copy of this order be sent to Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission for compliance. I.A.No.19 in R.P.No.249/92: 8. Since orders have been made in this behalf in the main petition this I.A. does not survive. Hence dismissed. I.A. No.3 in R.P.No.423/92: 9. In view of the order passed on the main matter this I.A, does not survive and will stand disposed of. I.A.No.23 in R.P.No.249/92: 10. Mr. N. Sudhakaran the learned counsel states that nothing survives in this I.A. as the orders have already been passed. Hence this I.A. is dismissed. I.A.No.26 in R.P.No.249/92: 11. this I.A. was modified as the compliance was not complete. Now this does not survive any more. Hence dismissed. I.A.No.27 in R.P.No.249/92: 12. List after two weeks. I.A.No.28 in R.P.No.249/92: 13. None present. Dismissed. I.A.No.3 in W.P.No.1022: 14. The prayer sought in this application has been dealt with in the main petition. Hence, this application does not survive and will stand disposed, of. I.A. Nos.4 & in WP.No.1022: 15. the prayer sought in these applications has been dealt with in the main petition. Hence these applications do not survive and are disposed of. I.A.Nos21, 22, 24 and 25 IN R.P.No.2491 92: 16. These I.As. are disposed of in view of the' order passed in the main petition. I.A.No.17 in R.P.No.249: 17. In view of the order dated 7.9.95 passed in the main petition, this I.A. does not survive. Hence, disposed of.