Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and Permits Withdrawal of Writ Petition Filed by Retired High Court Judge in Re-employment Benefits Dispute. Retired Patna High Court Judge Allowed to Withdraw His Writ Petition as Executive's Insensitive Conduct Undermined Judicial Dignity and Independence, with No Costs.

Case Note & Summary

Background: The dispute arose from the State of Bihar's failure to honour conditions of re-employment offered to a retired judge of the Patna High Court. The respondent, a former High Court judge, had been appointed as Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal by notification dated 18 March 1993, which stated that he would be appointed on conditions of re-employment. However, the State of Bihar did not offer those conditions, compelling the respondent to file a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking enforcement of what he believed to be his legitimate rights. Facts: The respondent filed C.W.J.C. No. 6878 of 1993 before the Patna High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 28 January 1994. Aggrieved, the State of Bihar preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the respondent filed a memorandum seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition in the High Court, stating that upon reflection and consistent with the high traditions and dignity of the office he had held as a judge of the Patna High Court, he need not have approached the High Court as a petitioner even to seek enforcement of a legitimate right. Legal Issues: The Court considered whether the respondent should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition after having obtained a favourable order, whether the High Court order should be set aside without expressing any opinion on merits, and what observations were appropriate concerning the conduct of the Government of Bihar and the independence of the judiciary. Arguments: The respondent, through counsel, submitted a memorandum expressing his considered view to withdraw the petition, emphasising that his decision was consistent with the dignity of his former judicial office. The State of Bihar, as appellant, had contested the claim, which the Court found reflected an insensitive approach and caused needless embarrassment. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court commended the stand taken by the respondent and noted that the Government of Bihar was responsible for creating a situation which led the respondent to file the writ petition in the belief that it was necessary to uphold the dignity of his former office. The Court observed that the Government's insensitive approach escalated the matter into an unseemly controversy. It regretted the Government's tenacity in contesting the matter despite the damage it caused to the image of the superior judiciary. The Court emphasised that this incident raised concerns intimately connected with the independence of the judiciary and expressed hope that the Government would appreciate the correct approach expected from the executive in such matters. It also expected the higher judiciary to take note of the incident to prevent similar embarrassment to retired superior judges in future. Decision: The Supreme Court granted the respondent's prayer to withdraw the writ petition. It set aside the High Court's order dated 28 January 1994 without expressing any opinion on the merits. The appeal and the writ petition were disposed of in this manner, with no costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court permitted the respondent to withdraw the writ petition. The High Court's order dated 28 January 1994 was set aside without expressing any opinion on merits. The appeal and the writ petition were disposed of, with no costs. The Court also made observations condemning the Government of Bihar's conduct as insensitive and damaging to judicial dignity and independence.

Law Points