ORDER : H.L. Dattu, Madan B. Lokur, JJ. I.A. No. 201 of 2006 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 1. Shri A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel for the applicant(s) seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this I.A. with liberty to file appropriate application for appropriate relief at an appropriate time. 2. Permission sought for is granted. 3. I.A. No. 201 of 2006 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate application for appropriate relief at an appropriate time. I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 201 of 2006 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 4. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) submits that in view of the withdrawal of I.A. No. 201 of 2006, I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 201 of 2006 has become in fructuous. 5. Taking on record the statement so made by learned counsel, we disposed of I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 201 of 2006, as having become in fructuous. I.A. No. 1 of 2008 in I.A. No. 213 of 2007 6. By order dated 01.10.2013, we had permitted the applicant to make an appropriate representation before the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 7. The applicant thereafter had made a representation before the concerned authorities. 8. Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, on instructions, would submit that the authorities have considered the representation filed by the applicant and have passed appropriate orders dated 16.12.1013. 9. In view of the said development, nothing left in I.A. No. 1 of 2008 in I.A. No. 213 of 2007 for our consideration and decision. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2008 is disposed of. 10. If for any reason, the applicant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he is at liberty to question the same before an appropriate forum. 11. Ordered accordingly. I.A. Nos.240 & 255 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 I.A. 240 of 2008 12. Prayer to intervene in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 is rejected. I.A. No. 255 of 2008 13. Consequent upon the dismissal of I.A. No. I.A. No. 240 of 2008, prayer made in I.A. No. 255 of 2008 is also rejected. 14. I.A No. 255 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is disposed of accordingly. 15. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach appropriate forum for appropriate relief by filing appropriate petitions. Consequent upon the dismissal of I.A. No. I.A. No. 240 of 2008, prayer made in I.A. No. 255 of 2008 is also rejected. 14. I.A No. 255 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is disposed of accordingly. 15. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach appropriate forum for appropriate relief by filing appropriate petitions. I.A. No. 7 of 2010 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 16. After hearing Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, we are not inclined to grant the prayer sought for in I.A. No. 7 of 2010. 17. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7 of 2010 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is dismissed. I.A. No. 16 of 2011 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 and two unregistered applications 18. I.A. 16 of 2011 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 seeking prayer for intervention along with unregistered applications are dismissed. I.A No. 249 of 2008 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 & I.A. No. 2 in I.A. No. 249 of 2008 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 19. At the request of Shri A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel, these I.As. are adjourned. I.A. No. 17 of 2011 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 20. Shri A.T.M. Sampath, learned Amicus Curiae has filed a brief compliance chart in I.A. No. 17 of 2011 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989. The Chart is in two parts. We take on record the chart so filed by the learned Amicus Curiae. 21. Shri Sampath submits that Part A of the chart suggests that 21 States have fully complied with the report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. 22. Insofar as Part B is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae submits that certain States have substantially complied with the report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee but still there are few deficiencies. insofar as the States of Bihar, is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out three deficiencies which read as follows: (a) The qualifying service period of two years for full pension notified w.e.f. 2.9.2008 in stead of 1.1.2006, as directed. insofar as the States of Bihar, is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out three deficiencies which read as follows: (a) The qualifying service period of two years for full pension notified w.e.f. 2.9.2008 in stead of 1.1.2006, as directed. (b) Vide Resolution dated 24.12.2010, the Death-cum-Gratuity duly enhanced from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs - but w.e.f. 02.09.2008 in stead of w.e.f. 01.01.2006, as ordered. (c) Vide Resolution dated 15.05.2013, the reimbursement of medical bills ordered to be processed and paid by the Law department as per Bihar State Health Scheme AND NOT as per para 19.122 (Pages 1059-1061) of Justice Shetty Commission Report Vol. III, read with para 23.19 at page 1164. 23. The learned counsel for the State of Bihar, on instructions would submit that they will look in to the deficiencies pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae and requests us to grant time to file appropriate compliance report. 24. Prayer sought for is granted. 25. Accordingly, we direct learned counsel for the State of Bihar to look in to the deficiencies pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae and file appropriate compliance report with in six weeks time from today. Re: State of Gujarat: 26. Insofar as the State of Gujarat is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out the following deficiency: "The High Court duly evolved Special Pay for Judicial officers as required but its approval by the State Government has been pending decision for the last over 3 years. As per the latest affidavit dated 29.01.2013, the matter in question "is pending for consideration at the highest level and it would be shortly complied with" 27. Learned counsel for the State of Gujarat submits that the deficiency so pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae is complied with. However, she seeks some time to file an appropriate affidavit before this Court. 28. The request so made by learned counsel seems to be reasonable. Accordingly, it is granted. 29. Call on 25.03.2014 at 2.00 p.m. Re : State of Jammu & Kashmir 30. Learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out following deficiencies in the compliance report: (i) The domestic Help Allowance @ Rs.750/- pm. permissible to Family Pensioners has not been released without any justification. (ii) The qualifying period of 20 years for full pension notified w.e.f. 02.09.2008 in stead of 01.01.2006, as required. Learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out following deficiencies in the compliance report: (i) The domestic Help Allowance @ Rs.750/- pm. permissible to Family Pensioners has not been released without any justification. (ii) The qualifying period of 20 years for full pension notified w.e.f. 02.09.2008 in stead of 01.01.2006, as required. (iii) Regarding revision of pension for PAST PENSIONERS (pre-1.1.2006 retirees), "the proportionate cut for less qualifying service" still in operation despite a specific direction to the contrary issued by this Hon'ble court in its Order dated 21.11.2006. (iv) The G.O. dated 29.11.2012 relating to PAST PENSIONERS (i.e. pre -1.1.2006 retires) failed to extend any pensionary benefit to the pre-1.1.20006 retirees. in other words, no revision of pension has so far been made available to the officers who had retired prior to 1.1.1996 and were entitled to benefits of revision of pension as recommended by Justice Shetty Commission and duly approved by this Hon'ble Court. (v) The Medical facilities not ordered so far by the State as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendations contained at para 19.122 (Pages 1059-61) read with paras 23.18/23.19 (page-1164) Vol. III of the Report. Hence Serving as well as retired Judicial officers are facing unnecessary hardship. (vi) The arrears of pensionary benefits are not being released in lumpsum despite a specific Order dated 2.8.2010 of this Hon'ble Court to the following effect: "Having accepted the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee, as indicated in the orders passed by this Court from time to time, we peremptorily give 31st March, 2011 as the cut-off date by which payment shall be made, including arrears, in terms of the said report". 31. According to learned Amicus Curiae, in spite of granting sufficient time by this Court, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not fully complied with Justice Padmanabhan Committee Reports dated 04.05.2010 and 26.07.2010. 32. Learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not present when the application is called for hearing. 33. We request learned Amicus Curiae to serve a copy of compliance chart to learned counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir with in a week's time from today. After service of said compliance chart the State Government shall comply with the deficiencies pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae with in five weeks' time thereafter. 33. We request learned Amicus Curiae to serve a copy of compliance chart to learned counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir with in a week's time from today. After service of said compliance chart the State Government shall comply with the deficiencies pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae with in five weeks' time thereafter. If for any reason they fail to comply with the deficiencies pointed by learned Amicus Curiae, in order to pass appropriate orders on the deficiencies pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae, we direct Shri Muzaffar Ahmad Wani, S/o Shri Kh. Ghulam Qadir Wani, Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Department of law, Justice and parliamentary Affairs, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir to personally appear before this Court on 25.03.2014 at 2.00 p.m. Re: State of Maharashtra 34. We have perused the note appended to the chart where in learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in affidavit dated 08.10.2012 filed by the State, they have admitted that G.O. in question, dated 27.7.2011 is not exhaustive but the said G.O. requires to be read in conjunction with the earlier Government Resolution dated 05.01.2011 and corrigendum dated 30.03.2011. 35. The contentions so made by the State of Maharashtra in its affidavit dated 08.10.2012 requires to be verified by the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court. 36. Therefore, we request learned Amicus Curiae to send the chart containing deficiencies pointed out by him and also the affidavit dated 08.10.2012 filed by the State to the Registrar General of Bombay High Court as expeditiously as possible at any rate with in two weeks' time today through the Registry of this Court. 37. After receipt of the chart and affidavit of the State of Maharashtra the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court will verify and submit a report before this court with in three weeks' time thereafter. 38. Call on 25.03.2014 at 2.00 pm. Re : Union Territory of Puducherry & NCT of Delhi 39. Shri Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the Union Territory of Puducherry brings to our notice the order passed by this Court on 17.09.2012 which reads as under : .....The counsel representing the Union Territory of Puducherry and National Capital Territory of Delhi and the counsel representing the Union of India state that they comply with the directions of this Court on some of the issues. Mr. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned ASG is present before this Court and we put him on notice on this aspect of the matter. ." 40. We are in formed by learned counsel for the Union Territory that being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the Union Government had filed a review petition and the same is dismissed by this Court. 41. In view of the dismissal of the review petition it is now for the Union Government to sanction funds to the Union Territory of Puducherry and National Capital Territory of Delhi to comply with the orders and directions issued by this Court dated 26.07.2010 in sofar as Union Territory of Puducherry is concerned and orders and directions dated 19.07.2010, 27.07.2010 and 02.08.2010 in sofar as National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned. We grant six weeks' time to the Union Government for the aforesaid compliance. Re: State of Orissa 42. The grievance made out by the applicant is as under: (i) the Notification dated 22.9.2010 relating to revision of pension to the pre - 1.1.2006 retirees allowed the same as per State employees in stead of as per justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations duly approved by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) the qualifying service period of 20 years for full pension notified w.e.f. 2.9.2008 in stead of 1.1.2006, as required. (iii) the Medical facilities not ordered so far by the State as per justice Shetty Commission recommendations contained at para 19.122 (pages 1059-61) read with paras 23.18/23.19 (page 1164) Vol. III of the Report. Hence serving as well as retired Judicial officers are facing unnecessary hardship. 43. In the affidavit filed by the State of Orissa dated 06.12.2013, the State has reported compliance only with regard to Item Nos. (ii)& (iii), however, has rejected the grievance in Item No. (i). Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Court by orders dated 04.05.2010 and 26.07.2010 has accepted Justice Padnamabhan Committee's report. The State Government cannot be pleading any in convenience in implementing the aforesaid report. 44. Therefore, we once again direct the State Government to look in to the grievance of the applicants in so far as Item No. 1 is concerned and pass appropriate orders with in six weeks' time from today. Appropriate compliance report shall be filed before this Court with in the time granted. 45. Ordered accordingly. I.A. Nos. 44. Therefore, we once again direct the State Government to look in to the grievance of the applicants in so far as Item No. 1 is concerned and pass appropriate orders with in six weeks' time from today. Appropriate compliance report shall be filed before this Court with in the time granted. 45. Ordered accordingly. I.A. Nos. 295 and 296 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 46. In view of orders passed by us in I.A. No 17 of 2011, no orders and directions need to be issued in these I.As. I.A. No. 297 of 2012 in I.A. No. 71A in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 47. Pursuant to notice issued by this court, dated 28.01.2013, the States of Jharkhand, Kerala, Uttarakhand and Bihar have filed their response. 48. Learned counsel appearing for the remaining States requests us to grant some time to file their response to the prayers made in I.A. No. 297 of 2012. 49. The request so made is granted. 50. Finally, four seeks' time is granted to the remaining States to file their response. 51. In sofar as the State of Gujarat is concerned, Shri L.N. Rao, learned ASG submits that the counter affidavit filed in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 737 of 2012 may be taken as a response to prayer made in I.A. No. 297 of 2012. 52. The submission so made by learned ASG is accepted. The counter affidavit filed in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 737 of 2012 be taken as a response to prayer made in I.A. No. 297 of 2012. 53. List on 25.03.2014 at 2.00 p.m. S.L.P.(C) No. 737 of 2012 54. Tag with I.A. No. 297 of 2012. I.A. Nos. 302 & 303 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 55. These I.As. are disposed of in view of orders passed in I.A. No. 17 of 2011 (Re: National Capital Territory of Delhi) I.A. Nos. 306 & 307 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 56. Shri Shrish Kumar Mishra, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this I.A. with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. 57. Permission sought for is granted. The I.As. are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. I.A. Nos. 311 & 312 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 58. 57. Permission sought for is granted. The I.As. are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. I.A. Nos. 311 & 312 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 58. I.A. No. 311 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 is dismissed for the present. I.A. No. 312 59. The applicants have prayed for the following relief: (a) Direct the State of Kerala to implement the recommendations of Shetty Commission Report as directed by this Hon'ble Court. ....." 60. In view of the orders passed by this Court on 07.10.2009, if for any reason the State has not implemented the Justice Shetty Commission in toto the applicant can ventilate their grievance before the appropriate Writ Court. 61. In that view of the matter we decline to grant the prayer sought for in this application. I.A. No. 312 is dismissed accordingly, 62. However, we permit the applicants to go before the Writ Court for redressal of all their grievances. I.A. Nos. 313, 314 & 315 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 63. I.A. Nos. 313 and 314 are dismissed. I.A. No. 315 64. The following prayer is made in this I.A. : "Pleased to issue Direction that the Notification by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh published in Utter Pradesh Gazette dated 28th March 2005 of New Pension Scheme annexed as (Annexure P-1) has no application so far as the members of the District Judiciary in the State of U.P. who came to be appointed subsequent to 01.04.2005 and further direct the Government of U.P. who came to be appointed subsequent to 01.04.2005 and further direct the Government of U.P. to continue the old pension scheme with respect to the applicants/judicial officers." 65. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. I.A. No. 315 is dismissed accordingly. However, we permit the applicants to approach the Writ Court for redressal of their grievance. I.A. No. 316 of 2013 in W.P(C) No. 1022 of 1989 66. In the above mentioned I.A., the grievance is made by the applicant(s) and other similarly situated persons that the orders passed by this Court dated 15.07.2008 in I.A. No. 71A, 135-136, 137, 138 and 142 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 were not implemented. 67. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. In the above mentioned I.A., the grievance is made by the applicant(s) and other similarly situated persons that the orders passed by this Court dated 15.07.2008 in I.A. No. 71A, 135-136, 137, 138 and 142 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 were not implemented. 67. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. However, we permit the applicant to approach the High Court for redressal of the grievance. 68. If such a petition is filed, the High Court will look in to the grievance of the applicant(s) and pass appropriate orders. 69. With these observations and directions, the application is disposed of. I.A. No. 317 in W.P(C) No. 1022 of 1989 70. Shri Ambhoj Kumar S in ha, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this I.A. with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. 71. Permission sought for is granted. 72. The I.A. is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. I.A. Nos. 318 & 31 9 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 73. I.A. No. 318 for intervention is dismissed. I.A. No. 319 74. The following prayer is made in this I.A : "Direct the Respondent High court of Allahabad to consider and decide the objections made by the applicant(s) dated 5.8.2013 (annexure A-13) qua the "tentative Seniority Report" laying down the principles for determining inter se seniority of the members of the Higher Judicial officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 21.03.2002 (Annexure A-1) as well as provisions of the present Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (Annexure A-2) and to prepare final seniority list accordingly." 75. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. I.A. No. 319 is dismissed accordingly. However, we permit the applicants to approach the Writ Court for redressal of their grievance. I.A. Nos. 320 & 321 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 76. I.A. No. 320 for intervention is dismissed. I.A. No. 321 77. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. I.A. No. 319 is dismissed accordingly. However, we permit the applicants to approach the Writ Court for redressal of their grievance. I.A. Nos. 320 & 321 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 76. I.A. No. 320 for intervention is dismissed. I.A. No. 321 77. The following prayers are made in this I.A.: (i) Pass necessary orders/directions to ensure the compliance of the directions given by this Hon'ble Court in Judgment dated 21.03.2002; (ii) Pass necessary directions by way of clarification that principles adopted prior to 21.03.2002 and which are in consistent with the directions in 'the Judgment', cannot be brought in to play in appointments and fixation of seniority after 21.03.2002." 78. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. I.A. No. 321 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is dismissed accordingly. However, we permit the applicants to approach the Writ court for redressal of their grievance. I.A. No. 322 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 79. Issue notice. I.A. No. 323 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 80. The following prayer is made in this I.A.: "Declare introduction of Contribution Pension Scheme, compulsory to the judicial officer irrespective of their date of joining vide order dated 06.08.2004 by Govt. of Tamil Nadu, order dated 01.04.2005 by Govt. of Gujarat, order dated 16.10.2008 by Govt. of Orissa, order dated 28.01.2010 by govt. of Nagaland and order dated 24.05.2010 by Govt. of Kerala and other similar orders by other State Governments as illegal and in applicable in terms of judgment dated 24.08.1993 of this Hon'ble court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India & Ors." 81. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. I.A. No. 323 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is dismissed accordingly. However, we permit the applicants to approach the Writ Court for redressal of their grievance. I.A. Nos. 324-325 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 82. I.A. No. 324 for impleadment is dismissed. I.A. No. 325 "Direct respondent to pass appropriate orders extending such benefits to the applicants while on deputation, as would be admissible to them as the members of their respective parent services as per order dated 22.04.2008 of this Hon'ble Court (Annexure-II) passed in I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 213 of 2007." 83. I.A. No. 325 "Direct respondent to pass appropriate orders extending such benefits to the applicants while on deputation, as would be admissible to them as the members of their respective parent services as per order dated 22.04.2008 of this Hon'ble Court (Annexure-II) passed in I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 213 of 2007." 83. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. I.A. No. 325 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is dismissed accordingly. However, we permit the applicants to approach the Writ Court for redressal of their grievance. I.A. Nos. 326-327 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 84. I.A. No. 326 for intervention is dismissed. I.A. No. 327 85. The following prayer is made in this I.A. : "The applicants graciously pray to seek directions against the State Government of Maharashtra to upgrade their pay scales as mentioned in tabular in Para No. 25 of this application or alternatively directions be issued against the State Government to give all the benefits to the respective Stenographers in furtherance of order dated 07.10.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court in I.A. No. 71A etc. in Writ petition No. 1022 of 1989, in the k in d interest of administration of Justice." 86. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. I.A. No. 327 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is dismissed accordingly. However, we permit the applicants to approach the Writ Court for redressal of their grievance. I.A. No. 328 of W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 87. The following prayer is made in this I.A.: "Pass an order directing the Respondent No. 1 to raise the existing pensions of the judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary and the Higher Judicial service in the State of Kerala, who retired between 01.01.1996 and 31.03.2005 by 3.07 times on par with the other retired judicial officers subject to the minimum of 50% of the revised pay scale of their respective posts." 88. In our considered view, the aforesaid prayer cannot be granted. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. I.A. No. 328 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 is dismissed accordingly. However, we permit the applicants to approach the Writ Court for redressal of their grievance.