https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272520 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. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2018 12:42:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272520 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272520