THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

A v.

SURESH CHANDRA MUKHERJEE

MAY 2, 1996

[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] B

Judiciary:

Independence of judiciary-Higher Judiciaiy--Retired High Court Judge-Govcmment of Bihar offering him appointment as Presiding Officer C

Industlial T1ibunal on conditions of re-e111p/oyn1ent Governnzent not coniplying with the tenns as offered in the Notification-Wiit petition for direction to State Govemment to extend the facilities as per Notification allowed by High Coiat-Govenunent contesting the nzatter and filing SLP in Suprenze Court--Respondmt seeking to withdraw writ petition filed by him in High Court even after w1it petition was allowed-Prayer granted-Held, the stand D taken by the respondent, a retired fudge of Patna High Cowt is indeed to be commended and is consistent with" high traditions and dignity of the high office which he has held-State govemment is re; ponsible for creation of a situation which led the respondent to file a w1it petition in the High Court-It is unfortunate that the Govemment failed to appreciate that it was inap- _E propriate on its part to invite the respondent to accept an appointment after his retirement under the impression that the condition thereof would be commensurate with the dignity of the office of the High Cowt Judge and then to have resiled therefrom causing embarrassment to the re.1pondent as well as to the Patna High Court--Govemment of Bihar will at least now appreciate the correct approach which is expected from the executive in such matters-ft is also expected that the higher judiciary will take not of this incident to ensure that no one else is aposed to a sin1ilar embaTTassnzent in future on account of insensitivity of any Govemment in making such an offer to a retired superior Judge-77iis incident has thrown up for reflecting this aspect which

is intimately connected with the independence of judiciary.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7781 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.94 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J. No. 6878 of 1993.

284 SllPREMF COURT lffl'ORTS [l996J Sl!PP. 2 S.C.R.

A H.L. Aggarwal for B.B. Singh for the Appellants.

A. Sharan for the Respondent.

The fullowing Order of the Court was delivered :

B Lea\'e granted.

Shri AmarenJra Sharan, learned counsel for the respondent has filed

a mcmorandun1 on behalf of the respondent seeking leave to \Vithdra\v the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court, even though that

\Vrit petition has been ailo\ved by the High Court, stating in tha1 men10 as

under :

111. The instant Special Lea\'c Petition is directed against the ()rder of the Patna High Court dated 28th January, 1994 in C.W J.C. No. 6878/93. The Respondent filed a writ petition seeking enfureeen1ent of certain benefits \Vhich \Vere consistent \Vith the Notification by which he was appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal. The Notification dated 18th March, 1993 states that he would be appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal on conditions of re-employment.

2. In view of the Slate of Bihar not offering the conditions of re-employment as stated in the Notification, the Respondent filed the writ petition in which the Order under Appeal has come to be passed.

3. The Respondent upon a reflection of the matter, consistent with the high traditions and dignity of the office which he held as Judge of the Patna High Court, is of the considered view that he need not have approached the High Court as a petitioner even to seek enforcement of what he believed to be his legitimate right. Upon a re-consideration of the matter, the respondent craves leave of your Lordships to withdraw his petition. Consistent with the traditions of high office that the Respondent has held, the Respondent prays that Your Lordship may be pleased to give this opportunity."

On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, \Ve are satisfied

STATE v. S.C. MUKHERJEE 285

that the stand taken by the respondent, who is a retired Judge of the Patna A High Court, is indeed to be commended and that it is consistent with the high traditions and dignity of the high office which he has held.

The facts of this case do indicate that the Government of Bihar is responsible for the creation of a situation which led the respondent to file B a writ petition in the High Court in the belief that it was necessary to do so to uphold the dignity of the office which he had held. It is true that such a step taken by him escalated to an unseemly controversy because of the insensitive approach of the Government of Bihar to the problem and the manner in which it has chosen to contest the claim. However, even after C obtaining a favourable order from the High Court in that writ petition, the respondent has chosen to close this chapter and withdraw the writ petition itself, which is sufficient indication of the fact that he resorted to that step only in an attempt to vindicate the honour of the high office of a High Court Judge. It is unfortunate that the Government of Bihar failed to appreciate that it was, to say the least, inappropriate on its part to invite D the respondent to accept an appointment after his retirement under the impression that the conditions thereof would be commensurate with the dignity of the office of the High Court Judge which he had held, and then to have resiled therefrom causing needless embarrassment to the respondent as well as the Patna High Court itself. In comparison with the E unabated huge wastage of public money even in litigation which is a common spectacle, the tenacity with which the Government of Bihar contested this matter, unmindful of the damage it was causing to the image of the superior judiciary of the State, is indeed a matter of deep regret.

We make these observations with the hope that the Government of Bihar will at least now appreciate the correct approach which is expected from the executive in such matters. It is also expected that the higher judiciary will take note of this incident to ensure that no one else is exposed

to a similar embarrassment in future on account of the insensitivity of any G Government in making such an offer to a retired superior Judge. This incident has thrown up for reflection this aspect which is intimately connected with the independence of judiciary. It is for this reason, we are constrained to make these observations while granting the prayer made by the respondent to permit the withdrawal of his writ petition.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

In view of the respondent's prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition, the High Court's order made there-on is set aside without expressing any opinion on the merits, and the writ petition filed in the High Court is

permitted to be withdrawn.

This appeal and the respondent's writ petition filed in the High Court are disposed of in this manner. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal and disposed.