evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
' •

A 482

AjlDUL REHMAN ANTULAY

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

[AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.] .

April 17, 1984

~ .· # . constitution of India Ari. 1'41--i>uty of all courts to follow dcision of the Supreme Court;

Spreme Court Ruf es-Whether Supreme Court cafl. entertain writ petition aiafnst its own .ofder anti i; tdgmfnt. ·

ORJGIN, l.L

& CRIMINAL APPELLATE . JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Cr!) No. 708 of !934. ·

'(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

And

Speial Leave Petitiob (Cr!) Nos. 1949·50 of 1984

(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.84 and 16,3.84 of the Bombay High Court in Speciat'Case Nos. 24/82 & 3/83)

Mtirli Bhandare; Govindtfas, Ms-. Bina Gupta, H.R: Bhardwaj and PP. Singh for the petitioner. ' R.am Jethma/ani, Ashok Desai and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for • the _respondents.

The Order, 'of the Court was delivered by

AMARE'WRA NATH SEN, J. There is' no merit in this Writ Petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ,

In inY view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. "t wish to make it cleat that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application which be may be entitle<! in law to file.

. .

,.. .

.,., .A..

. ,.,_

' ')r ' "

. {

A.R. ANT1JLAY v. UNION (Desai, J.) 483

DESAI, J. I broadly agree with the. conclusion recorded by A my br9ther.

The learned Judge in deciding the S.L.P (Crl) Nos. 1149-50/ 1984 has followed the decision of this Court: The learned Judge was perfectly justified and indeed it was the duty of th.e learned Judge to follow the decision of this Court which is binding on B him.·

Special 'leave petitions are dismissed.

H.S.K.

Petitions dismissed. • c
UNION OF INDIA

BIDHUBHUSHAN. MALIK AND OTHERS

Aprf/·~4,1984 ..

(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY;.A.P, SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMiAH, JJ.J

High Court Judges (Condition• of Service) Act, 1954 (as ame,, ded)- , First Schedule-Para JO-Validity of,

Affirming the decision of tho High Court and dismissing t.he special leave petition, . • HELD : (I) The words "and who has retired on or after the Jsl day' of October, 1984" appearing in para 10 of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) are unconsti mtional and are struck down.

[SSO A] •

 ' (2) The Judges (including the Chief Justices) of the High Courts are entitled lo pensfon as comput~ under the Act (as amended) irrespective of their date of. retirement. Bot they will not be entitled to arars of pension for the period preceding October I, 1984, the date which continues to be releVant as. being one from which the libcalised pension bCCame operative.

 lsso e.:.., c] ~

Decision of Al/a/rabadHigh Curt In W.P. No. 3281 of 1979 (Judgment delivered on March 2, 1983) upheld.· · ·

CIVIL AP)'ELLATB Ju1t1~DicrioN : Special Leave Petition (Civil) '.No. 9616 of 1983.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd March, 1983 of the

Allahabaa High Court in Writ' Petition No. 3281 of 1979. "'

K. Parasaran,. Attorney General, R.D.4 garwala and R.N. Poddar for the Petitioner .

. The Order of the <;; ourt was delivered by .

CH!NNAPPA REDDY, J. The Allahabad High Court has held:

'".: .... The High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, .. 195·4, (as amended) hal1°be read down as under, in para 10 of the

\ UNION v. B!DHUBHUSHAN (Chinnappa Reddy, i.) .551

.First Schedule, the wordi "and win has retired on or after the !st' day of.October, 1974" are unconstitutional and are stru9k down. Omittin_g; the unconstitutional part it is declared that the Judges (including the. Chief Justices) of the High Court are entitled. to pension as computed wider the High Court Judges ( Condions of Service) Act, 1954, (as amended) irrespective of the date of retire

ment., The date October I, 1974, continues. to be relevant as being One from which the liberalised pension beeame operative underthe High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1976, irrespective of the date of retirement and hence there is no question .of payment of a1rears of pension for tli.e period preceding October

1., 1974 ......... "

• For the reasons mentioned by the learned Judge's of the ,

Allahabad High .Court in their Judgment, we agree with their ' conclusion and dismiss the special kave petition .

 B:.S.K Petition dismissM .