# Smt. Suman Sinha v. Chief Justice, High Court, Allahabad & others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 9
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-07-16
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-suman-sinha-v-chief-justice-high-court-allahabad-others-39633
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

1All] Smt. Suman Sinha V. Chief Justice, High Court, Allahabad & others
9
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7('
'$7('
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21
%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21
%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21
%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6PW 6XPDQ 6LQKD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
&KLHI -XVWLFH +LJK &RXUW $OODKDEDG DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL $QLO .XPDU 6ULYDVWDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6UL 6XQLO $PEZDQL
6UL 61 6ULYDVWDYD
6UL 6XGKLU $JDUZDO

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
WKH
EHQHILWV
RI
GHVWLWXWH ZLGRZ DQG
FKLOGUHQ RI $GYRFDWHV ZKR KDG GLHG 83
%DU &RXQFLO LV D VWDWXWRU\ ERG\ ODZ KDV
EHHQ IUDPHG IRU WKH EHQHILWV RI GHVWLWXWH
ZLGRZV FKLOGUHQ RI WKH $GYRFDWH ZKR
KDV GLHG 83 %DU &RXQFLO GLUHFWHG WR
FRQVLGHU
WKH
FODLP
RI
VXFK
SHUVRQV
H[SHGLWLRXVO\
6XFK
ZLGRZV
ZKR
DUH
XQDEOH
WR
PDLQWDLQ
WKHPVHOYHV
FDQ
PDNH
D
GHPDQG
IRU
PDLQWHQDQFH
IURP
KHU
SDUHQWV
+HOG 3DUD
83 %DU &RXQFLO LV D VWDWXWRU\ ERG\ ,W LV
UHTXLUHG WR DFW DV SHU WKH SURYLVLRQV RI
WKH $FW DQG WKH 5XOHV 7KHUH FDQQRW EH
DQ\ GLVSXWH WKDW /DZ KDV EHHQ IUDPHG
IRU WKH EHQHILWV RI GHVWLWXWH ZLGRZV DQG
FKLOGUHQ RI $GYRFDWH ZKR KDG GLHG

By the Court

Following prayers have made in this
writ petition by the petitioner Smt. Suman
Sinha widow of Late Girish Shanker
Sinha,
Advocate,
whose
registration
number was 169 of 1981, and who had
died of heart attack on 16th July, 2000, as
per the Death Certificate as contained in
Annexure-1 :-

I. to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing Hon'ble the
Chief Justice and the Registrar of this
Court (arrayed as Respondent nos. 1 & 2
respectively) to consider the application
(as contained in Annexure-4) filed for her
appointment against any post in this court
in view of the proposal placed on
22.5.2000 before Hon'ble The Chief
Justice by the President of High Court Bar
Association of this Court at the time of
his welcome address which he had also
accepted.
II. to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to frame rules and law in the
interest of the dependants of the deceased
Advocates.
III. to issue a writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
Respondent no. 3, the U.P. Bar Council,
to
pay
immediately
a
sum
of
Rs.1,00,000/- under Accidental Insurance
Scheme and Rs.50,000/- for which the
dependants
of
every
Advocate
are
entitled.

2. Respondent no. 4 is the High
Court Bar Association, Allahabad, which
has been sued through its President.
Respondent no. 5 is the Union of India
through Speaker, New Delhi. Respondent
no. 6 is also the Union of India through its
Central Law Minister, New Delhi.

3. In terms of order dated 2.6.2000
the petitioner has served Respondent no.
3. It further appears that the petitioner of
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
her own has also served Respondent no. 4
by sending a copy of the writ petition
under postal certificate on 22nd June, 2000
( the postal seal is not clearly legible).

4. The petitioner claims to be a
destitute widow and having children aged
about 7 years, 6 years and 3 years to add
to her misery, that there is none to support
them who have become homeless and
income-less, that she went to her parents
first to have shelter and then to her sister
who not being financially well provided
shelter and food for some time, that
Dying-in-Harness
Rules
providing
employment,
and not those of the
registered
Advocates
who
play
an
important part in the society, is arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India inasmuch as they are
violative of principles of natural justice
amounting to an un-human conduct and
hence this writ petition.

The Submission:-

5. Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing in support of
the
prayers, contended that in the
circumstances enumerated in the writ
petition the reliefs prayedj for be granted.
Under the Constitutional ethics and
philosophy the State being a welfare State
is required to act in favour of citizens and
similarly situated persons, that it were the
lawyers who during freedom struggle of
the country had laid their lives, and are
still playing a dominant role in the present
social set up. Non framing of the rules by
the Government for giving employment to
the destitute widows and dependants of
the deceased advocates, who are also
called as 'Officers of the Court", is not
only contrary to the doctrine of welfare
but also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India and that in not
giving appointment to ;the petitioner
Hon'ble the Chief Justice has also not
acted fairly.

6. Shri Sudhir Agarwal, the learned
Special
Counsel
for
the
Court
representing Respondent nos. 1 and 2, on
the other hand contended as follows:- (a)
It being not the case of the petitioner that
any statutory function has not been
discharged by Respondents no. 1 & 2, the
prayer for issuance of a high prerogative
writ
like
mandamus
is
wholly
misconceived and not tenable. (b) He has
instructions to state that no promise was
ever made by the previous Hon'ble the
Chief Justice to the effect that an
appointment will be given to any widow
or dependant children of an Advocate nor
does the existing rules contemplate such
an appointment. (c) Accordingly, this writ
petition be dismissed.

7. No-one has appeared on behalf
the Respondent No. 4 nor does we see in
the
peculiar
circumstances
any
justification for issuance of a notice to the
High Court Bar Association.

8. Despite service of notice on it the
Respondent no. 3 the U.P. Bar Council
has not appeared to contest the claim of
the petitioner though on our query Shri
Amrendra Nath Singh, Advocate, who is
also a member of the U.P. Bar Council,
tried to assist us by taking a stand that if it
is a fact that petitioner has approached the
U.P. Bar Council then the latter is bound
to pass appropriate orders as per the rules
expeditiously.
Out Findings:-

9.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
Petitioner referred to several judgments of
1All] Smt. Suman Sinha V. Chief Justice, High Court, Allahabad & others
11
this Court wherein some observations
have been made in relation to powers of
the High Court which in our view do not
apply to the facts and circumstances of
the present case.

10.

Learned counsel for the
petitioner apparently failed to show us
that in not appointing the petitioner
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court has
violated any statutory rules or Act. As
rightly pointed out by Shri Sudhir
Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Respondents no. 1 & 2, the
existing rules do not contemplate any
provision for appointment of a destitute
widow of a deceased Advocate of this
Court. He went on to emphasize that even
though the petitioner, from the submission
made by her counsel, appears to be
possessing a Graduate Degree, but she has
not applied, despite advertisement made
by this Court, for her appointment against
any Class-III post and consequently there
was no question for affording any
opportunity to her to appear in the
ensuing examinations which are going to
be conducted for the purposes of filling
up Class-III posts in terms of notice
published earlier. Consequently, we see
no force in Prayer no. 1 to issue the
desired mandamus to Respondents nos. 1
& 2 and dismiss this writ petition as
against Respondents nos. 1 & 2.

11. Now we come to the second
prayer of the petitioner. The Courts have
got inherent limitation in this regard.
They cannot either legislate or command
the appropriate legislature to take a policy
decision in regard to the cause ventilated
by the petitioner not only on her behalf
but also for those persons who may
become widows of the Advocates in
future. The Law in this regard is clear. We
feel ourselves handicapped in granting
such a relief. The prayer for grant of relief
no. 2 is thus rejected.

12. Now we come to the last prayer.
Respondent no. 3, the U.P. Bar Council, is
a statutory body. It is required to act as
per the provisions of the Act and the
Rules. There cannot be any dispute that
Law has been framed for the benefits of
destitute
widows
and
children
of
Advocates who had died. Unfortunately
Respondent no. 3 is un-represented. We
do not want to embarrass Shri Amrendra
Nath Singh, who of his own has taken a
very fair stand before us which we have
already noted. Since keeping pending this
case against respondent no. 3 will not be
in the interest of the petitioner herself, we
dispose of prayer no. 3 with this direction
to Respondent no. 3 that it will consider
the claim of the petitioner with utmost
expedition and pass in interim order, as
per the law within 2 weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order from any
quarter and final orders within 2 months
therefore. In the ends of justice we direct
the office to serve a copy of our order
forthwith on Respondent no. 3 through a
special messenger.

13. Before parting, we being the
Apex Court of this State cannot remain a
silent spectator. The record discloses that
the petitioner is having parents. On her
case she has no source of livelihood.
There are ample provisions (See Mulla
Hindu Law 17th Edition Vol. II pages 446467) in the Statutes under which she can
make a demand for maintenance from her
parents through an appropriate court.
Accordingly, we give liberty to the
petitioner
to
file
an
appropriate
application before an appropriate Court
for
claiming
maintenance
from
her
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
parents and we hope and trust that if such
an application is made, the same shall be
taken up and appropriate orders will be
passed immediately.

14. This writ petition is disposed of
in terms aforementioned.

15. The Office is also directed to
hand over a copy of this order within 3
days to Shri Sudhir Agarwal, learned
counsel for the Court for its intimation to
Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 3. -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 3. -$,1 -

6HFRQG $SSHDO 1R RI

*KD]LDEDG
'HYHORSPHQW
$XWKRULW\
*KD]LDEDG WKURXJK LWV 9LFH &KDLUPDQ
«'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
9HUVXV
6UL /DMMD 5DP «3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL $. 0LVKUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6KUL 5DMHHY 0LVKUD
$
83 8UEDQ 3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW
$FW 6HFWLRQ 'HYHORSPHQW
FKDUJHV RQ 'HYHORSPHQW $UHD PHDQV
WKH GHYHORSPHQW FDUULHG RXW VKRXOG EH LQ
DFFRUGDQFH
ZLWK
WKH
0DVWHU
3ODQ
RU
=RQDO 'HYHORSPHQW SODQ UHTXLUHPHQW RI
SHUPLVVLRQ E\ WKH 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW IRU
FRQVWUXFWLQJ
WKH
%XLOGLQJ
EH\RQG

)$5 QRW UHTXLUHG
+HOG 3DUD
7KH DSSHOODQW KDV DOVR IDLOHG WR HVWDEOLVK
DQ\
VXFK
SUDFWLFH
DGRSWHG
E\
WKH
DSSHOODQW $V DOUHDG\ SRLQWHG RXW DERYH
LW LV QRW GLVSXWHG WKDW DURXQG WKH ODQG RI
WKH SODLQWLII VRPH EXLOGHUV KDYH EHHQ
SHUPLWWHG WR UDLVH FRQVWUXFWLRQV LQ
)$5 ,W LV QRZKHUH SOHDGHG QRU DQ\
HYLGHQFH LV SURGXFHG E\ WKH GHIHQGDQW
DSSHOODQW WR VKRZ WKDW VXFK SUDFWLFH DV
VXJJHVWHG E\ 6UL 0LVUD ZDV DGKHUHG WR
DQG VDQFWLRQ RI WKH 6WDWH JRYHUQPHQW
ZDV REWDLQHG E\ WKH DXWKRULW\
$V D
PDWWHU
RI
IDFW
LQ
P\
RSLQLRQ
QR
VXEVWDQWLDO TXHVWLRQ RI ODZ LV LQYROYHG LQ
WKLV UHJDUG DQG WKH SURYLVLRQV RI WKH $FW
DUH YHU\ PXFK FOHDU
%
83 8UEDQ 3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW
$FW

6HFWLRQ
±
'HYHORSPHQW
&KDUJHV
FDQ
EH
FKDUJHG
E\
WKH
DXWKRULW\
RQO\
ZKHQ
WKH
DFWXDO
'HYHORSPHQW E\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI URDG
GUDLQ VHYHU OLQH HOHFWULFLW\ VXSSO\ KDV
EHHQ
PDGH 'HYHORSPHQW IHH FDQ EH
FKDUJHG
SULRU
WR
VDQFWLRQ
RI
'HYHORSPHQW
SODQ
E\
SHUPLWWLQJ
WR
FRQVWUXFW
WKH
EXLOGLQJ
IHH
FKDUJHG
VKRXOG LQ XQLIRUPLW\
+HOG 3DUD
'HYHORSPHQW DUHD E\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI
URDG GUDLQ VHYHU OLQH HOHFWULF VXSSO\
DQG ZDWHU VXSSO\ OLQHV
,Q WKH LQVWDQW
FDVH WKHUH LV QR HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG WKDW
VXFK GHYHORSPHQW KDV EHHQ PDGH E\ WKH
DSSHOODQW +RZHYHU GXULQJ DUJXPHQWV LW
LV FRQFHGHG E\ WKH UHVSRQGHQW WKDW WKH\
DUH UHDG\ WR SD\ WKH GHYHORSPHQW IHH
SUREDEO\ IRU WKH UHDVRQ WKDW WKH\ KDYH
QRW SOHDGHG LQ WKH SODLQW WKDW QR VXFK
GHYHORSPHQW ZDV FDUULHG RXW E\ WKH
DSSHOODQW LQ WKH DUHD LQ TXHVWLRQ
By the Court

1. Though the appeals were admitted
by Hon'ble R.N. Ray, J (since retired)
vide order dated 10.12.97 no substantial
question
of
law
were
formulated.
However, Sri A.K. Mishra, learned
counsel for the appellant has pressed the
two appeals on following substantial
questions of law formulated by him in the
memos of appeal:-