Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the President's order under section 29(1) of The Bombay Reorganization Act, which determined that the appellant, an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court, would cease to be a Judge of that High Court and become a Judge of the newly formed High Court of Gujarat. The appellant contended that this order constituted a transfer under article 222(1) of the Constitution, thereby entitling him to a compensatory allowance under article 222(2). The High Court initially ruled that the order was an allocation of judges rather than a transfer, a decision upheld by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court analyzed the constitutional provisions, particularly articles 3 and 4, which allow for the formation of new states and the consequential provisions that may arise from such reorganization. The court concluded that the order was indeed an allocation related to the establishment of the Gujarat High Court and did not meet the criteria for a transfer as defined in article 222(1). Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the compensatory allowance he sought. The appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming the lower court's decisions. The court emphasized that the provisions of law enacted by Parliament in this context were enforceable and did not constitute an amendment to the Constitution. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Transfer of Judges - Definition of Transfer - Article 222 of the Constitution - The court held that the order under section 29(1) of The Bombay Reorganization Act was an allocation of judges rather than a transfer as envisaged by article 222(1), thus denying the claim for compensatory allowance under article 222(2). (Paras 617 A-C) B) Constitutional Law - Compensatory Allowance - Entitlement Conditions - Article 222(2) of the Constitution - The court determined that entitlement to compensatory allowance is conditional upon being 'so transferred' as per article 222(1), which was not applicable in this case. (Paras 617 D)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the President under section 29(1) of The Bombay Reorganization Act amounted to a transfer under article 222(1) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the order under section 29(1) was an allocation of judges and did not constitute a transfer under article 222(1), thus denying the claim for compensatory allowance under article 222(2). No order as to costs was made.
Law Points
- Constitutional interpretation
- transfer of judges
- compensatory allowance
- reorganization of states
