This PIL filed regarding grievances concerning the salary of judicial and non-judicial officers and court pendency was rejected. The Court found this to be an administrative matter best resolved between the Executive and Judiciary, declining to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 136 OF 2018 Ketan Tirodkar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents
Ketan Tirodkar – Petitioner-in-person. Mr.Abhinandan G.Vagyani, GP a/w Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for State.
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI &
M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 03rd OCTOBER, 2018
P.C. :
. The present PIL has been filed for various grievances
including the one with regard to the direction making assessment report for finding out the remedies for reducing the pendency in the Courts. The Petitioner has also raised the grievances with regard to the salary of the Judicial Officers and non Judicial Officers.
1/2
Commission and subsequently Padmanabhan Commission were established. On the report of the Shetty Commission there has been substantial rise in not only the salary but also perks and other facilities as are available to the subordinate Judicial Officers.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.)
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should entertain a PIL regarding grievances related to salary of judicial officers and non-judicial officers pending in the court.
Ketan Tirodkar
State of Maharashtra
B.R. Gavai
M.S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
