9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of this Court dated 21 August, 2018. It is directed that the four Judicial Members, whose names are set out in the tabulated statement in the order dated 3 March, 2023, shall continue to remain in service pending final disposal of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition shall be listed for hearing and final disposal on 11 July, 2023. - Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, C.J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J. Shri Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Advocate, Rahul Unikrishnan, Naveen Hegde, Siddharth Vasudev, Advocates, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas and By Courts Motion, AORs, for the Petitioner. Shri R. Venkatramani, Attorney General for India, Balbir Singh, K.M. Nataraj, Vikramjit Bannerjee, ASGs, Sidharth Luthra, Mukul Rohatgi, Paramjit Singh Patwalia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) The advertisements in pursuance of which these judicial members applied for selection stipulated that the age of retirement would be 62 years; (ii) The governing age of retirement for members of the CESTAT in terms of the parent legislation at the relevant time provided that the age of retirement would be 62 years; (iii) Interim orders were passed by this Court on 9 February, 2018, 20 March, 2018, 16 July, 2018 and 21 August, 2018, the essence of which, insofar as the CESTAT is concerned, is that persons who were recruited at the material time when the age of retirement was 62 years, would continue to be governed by the original date of retirement under the parent legislation; (iv) Despite the decisions of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntinue his tenure which is to end on 18 April, 2023. 4. Prima facie, at this stage, it appears uncontroverted that the selection of the above members of the CESTAT was in pursuance of a selection process which took place in 2016. At the material time, the parent legislation stipulated that the age of retirement would be 62 years. 5. In the most recent of the judgments in Madras Bar Association (2) (supra), Justice L. Nageswara Rao in the course of the judgment has observed as follows : 58. Insofar as the proviso to Section 184(11) is concerned, the Ordinance sets the maximum tenure at five years even with respect to the appointment orders passed between 26-5-2017 and 4-4-2021 provide for a higher tenure. In the process, interim di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. Bhagwat (supra), it was declared that a mandamus against the respondent-State giving financial benefits to the petitioners therein cannot be nullified by a legislation. It is also relevant to point out that even interim orders passed by this Court cannot be overruled by a legislative act, as discussed above. While making it clear that the appointments that are made to the CESTAT on the basis of interim orders passed by this Court shall be governed by the relevant statute and the rules framed thereunder, as they existed prior to the Finance Act, 2017, we uphold the retrospectivity given to the proviso to Section 184(11). To clarify further, all appointments after 4-4-2021 shall be governed by the Ordinance, as modified by the directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
