NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 59 OF 2019

BRAHMA SINGH AND OTHERS  …PETITIONER(S)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS       …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The short issue involved in this case is whether the service

rendered by the petitioners in the Supreme Court Legal Aid

Committee and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee prior to

the promulgation of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

Rules, 2000 is to be counted while calculating their qualifying

service for determination of pension.   

2. The  petitioners are serving  and retired employees of the

Supreme Court Legal Services Committee in various capacities.

They claim that the entire service rendered by them should be

1

treated as qualifying service for the purpose of fixing the retiral

benefits.   The respondent no.1­Union of India has rejected their

claim on 11.09.2017 and 08.12.2017, leading to the filing of this

petition.  The case of the petitioners is that their claim is squarely

covered by the judgment already rendered in their favour in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.267 of 2008 wherein considering the effect of

the Rules which are now under consideration, their entire service

was taken into consideration for fixing the pay and allowances

and they were given complete benefit of Rule 6 of The Supreme

Court Legal  Services Committee Rules,2000.   According to the

Union of  India, the benefit  can be given only from the date of

promulgation of the Rules and not prior to that.  Some of the

petitioners joined in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee as

far back as in 1981 and the service not taken into consideration

is more than 18 years and 8 months.

3. The Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee was constituted by

the Ministry of  Law & Justice under executive  instructions on

10.07.1981.   Para 7 of  the said  instructions provides that the

Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee shall  be entitled to make

necessary arrangements for staff and other facilities necessary for

2

the discharge of  its functions.   These instructions were  issued

with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, Department of

Expenditure.  Therefore, the posts were sanctioned posts though

no rules were framed for filling up the same.  Pursuant to these

instructions, the petitioners were appointed in different

capacities in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.  In 1987,

the Parliament enacted the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The National Legal Services Authority was constituted under

Section 3.   Sub­section (5) and (6) of Section 3 provide that the

Central Authority can appoint officers and other employees.  The

appointment of such employees and their pay and allowances are

to be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with

the  Chief Justice of India.   Section 3A of the Legal Services

Authorities Act provides for the constitution of the Supreme

Court Legal Services Committee and sub­section (5) and (6) are

identical to sub­section (5) and (6) of Section 3.   Rule 9 of The

National Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995 provides that the

conditions of service and salary and allowances of officers and

other employees of the Central Authority shall be at par with the

Central Government employees holding equivalent posts and it

further provides that in all  matters  like age of retirement,  pay

3

and allowances, the rules applicable to the employees of the

Central  Government shall also apply to the employees of the

Central Authority.  The Central  Authority  framed the Supreme

Court Legal Services Committee Regulations, 1996 and

Regulations 3(1) and 3(2) thereof read as follows;

“3. General effect of vesting. – On and from the date of commencement of these regulations, ­  

(1)All the assets, liabilities, rights, title and interest of the erstwhile Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee stand transferred to, and vest in, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee;   

3(2) The staff, who have been serving under the erstwhile Supreme Court  Legal  Aid Committee shall  be deemed to be working for the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee;

xxx xxx xxx”

4. The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules, 2000

were framed by the Central Government in consultation with the

Chief Justice of India and came into effect on 03.07.2000.  Rule 6

is relevant for our purpose and reads as follows:

“6.  The conditions of service and the salary and allowances payable to the officers and employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee under sub­section (6) of section 3A.­(1) The officers and other employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be entitled to draw pay and allowances in the  scale  of  pay  indicated against  each post in the Schedule to these rules or at par with the Central Government employees holding equivalent posts.

4

(2)In all matters like age of retirement, pay and allowances, benefits and entitlements and disciplinary matters, the officers and employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be governed by the Central  Government rules as are applicable  to persons holding equivalent posts.

(3)The officers and other employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be entitled to such other facilities and benefits as may be notified by the Central Government from time to time.

Explanation.  – The words “benefits”, “allowances”, “entitlements”,  “facilities”  occurring  in these rules shall be deemed to include, the entitlement to gratuity, provident fund, housing, medical benefits, pension, group insurance, and all other benefits as are available to employees of the Central Government holding equivalent posts.”

Sub­rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Legal Services

Committee  Rules clearly  states that in  all  matters like  age  of

retirement, pay and allowances and benefits on retirement the

officers and employees of the Supreme Court Legal Services

Committee shall be governed by the Central Government rules.   

5. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2008 whereby they had claimed

that they were entitled to pay and allowances and other benefits

under Rule 6 quoted hereinabove.  That writ petition was allowed

and the respondents were directed to give full benefit of Rule 6 of

the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules by fixing the

pay and allowances of the petitioners and other similarly situated

5

employees in the pay scales specified in the Schedule appended

to the Rules or at par with the Central Government employees

holding equivalent posts.  They were also directed to pay arrears

from the date of promulgation of the Rules i.e. 03.07.2000.   

6. The Union of India has raised a two­fold submission.   It is

first submitted that the service of the petitioners rendered prior

to 03.07.2000 cannot be taken into consideration while

quantifying the qualifying service or determining their retiral

benefits.  It is secondly contended that this plea could have been

taken in the earlier writ petition and, in fact, such a plea was

raised but finally the Court did not grant this relief and,

therefore, they cannot file the second petition.   

7. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the

Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee was created under

administrative instructions of the Government.   Thereafter, the

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 came into force.   The

services of the officers and employees were governed by Rule 3A

and after 2000, they are governed by the Supreme Court Legal

Services Committee Regulations, 2000.   They have been

rendering service uninterruptedly as employees of the Supreme

6

Court Legal Services Committee and no distinction can be made

between the service prior to 03.07.2000 and the service rendered

thereafter.   The petitioners have been regular employees of the

Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and their entire service

must be counted for determining their pension and other retiral

benefits.   This entire service is to be treated as their qualifying

service in accordance with the Rules.   

8. As far as the second  submission  made  on  behalf of the

Union of India is concerned, we have carefully gone through the

earlier order and the writ petition.   Though it is correct that in

the writ petition there was a general claim to grant all the

benefits under Rule 6 which would include retiral benefits but it

appears that the Court did not go into the same.   There is no

rejection of the plea and as such we are of the considered view

that this petition is maintainable and cannot be rejected on this

hyper­technical ground.  In relation to applicability of  Order II

Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 this Court has held in

Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma  v.  State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others1 as follows:

1 AIR 1962 SC 1334  

7

“12. …The bar of O.2 R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on which the High Court apparently relied may not apply to a petition for a high prerogative writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but the High Court having disallowed the claim of the appellant for salary prior to the date of the suit, we do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the exercise of its discretion by the High Court.”

Placing reliance on the case of  Devendra Pratap Narain

Rai Sharma  (supra), this Court in  Gulabchand Chhotalal

Parikh v. State of Gujarat2 in relation to Order II Rule 2 held as

follows:

“23. …By its very language, these provisions do not apply to the contents of a writ petition and consequently do not apply to the contents of a subsequent suit…”

9. In view of the above, we allow the petition and direct that

the  entire  service rendered  by the  petitioners in the  Supreme

Court Legal Aid Committee and the Supreme Court Legal

Services Committee shall be treated as qualifying service for the

purpose of pension  and shall be taken into consideration for

calculating their retiral benefits.   Pending application(s), if any,

stand(s)          disposed of.

………………………………..J. (L. Nageswara Rao)

2 AIR 1965 SC 1153  

8

…………………………………J. (Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi February 05, 2020   

9