Personal appearance by a Judge is permitted, while superannuation determinations need not be ignored for judicial assignment.

Article 220 was read as restricting a permanent Judge from practising as an advocate for others, not from appearing in person in his own cause; the petitioner was therefore entitled to appear and plead personally. On the retirement issue, the controlling factor was the petitioner's actual age and consequent superannuation under the constitutional scheme, and the Chief Justice was held not bound to disregard the Government's administrative determination treating him as retired. The Chief Justice was not required to continue assigning judicial work or to decide the age question independently in these proceedings, so no mandamus could issue to treat the petitioner as still in office.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a permanent Judge could appear in person under Article 220 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the Chief Justice could refuse to treat the petitioner as continuing in office and withhold judicial work on the basis of the Government of India's decision regarding superannuation.

Issue (i): Whether a permanent Judge could appear in person under Article 220 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The restriction in Article 220 was treated as a restriction on practice after a person has become a permanent Judge. The expression "plead" was read in the sense of acting as an advocate for another party, not as appearing to conduct one's own cause. The marginal note was used as an aid to construction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to appear and plead in person.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Justice could refuse to treat the petitioner as continuing in office and withhold judicial work on the basis of the Government of India's decision regarding superannuation.

Analysis: The controlling question was the petitioner's actual age and the resulting date of retirement under the constitutional scheme. The Government of India had made an administrative determination on superannuation and that decision had already been challenged unsuccessfully. The Chief Justice was held to have only taken note of that decision and was not required to ignore it or to allocate judicial work to a Judge whom the Government had treated as retired. The Court also held that the Chief Justice could not be compelled to decide the age question independently in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice was not bound to treat the petitioner as continuing in office or to allot judicial work to him.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because the challenge to the retirement position could not be sustained against the Chief Justice in these proceedings, and no mandamus could issue on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A Chief Justice is not required to disregard an administrative determination of superannuation made by the competent Government and need not allocate judicial work to a person treated as retired merely because that person disputes the underlying age determination.

---