Objective: The main discourse on the very existence of contradiction between Economic growth from one hand and redistribution policies and social Justice on the other has been hold up since midst of the go's in twentieth century. Resort to extreme market oriented as well as structural adjustment policies affected subsequent theories in these fields. All pre-assumptions and prejudicious believes against justice and planning, as issues considered as real enemies of the market, that was and still is supported as hopeful agent for economic Salvador throughout the theoretical reasoning, regard Len to very severe dreadful reversed facts. Now a day tracing that the approaches toward growth and justice as unilateral, political and social class oriented is more clear cut, although still need more explanation. This surrey is going to under take this task. Method: The Present surrey employs historical – analytical methodology. Sore basic and controvercial paradigms will be studies in the light of systematic logical analysis as well as comparative studies, particularly with respect to Iran and the world experiences. Finally the essay trips to defend planning as well as policies toward redistribution and Social justices with growth, based on the analytical – experimental methodology. Findings: Extremist Pro-market Pro-market policies and inclination, and suspending planning, by appeal to the claim of the sufficiency of the market or by resorting to inefficiencies the old fationed planning, have deteriorated the main part of the development, i.e. Social and human development as well as social justice, In global view, poverty, deprivation and discrimination have heavily increased, due to the disability of the market me hanism and provocation of the neo-liberalist idealogy. Results: The method and approach of the "growth with justice", providing growth resources through redistribution and dire tiny the resources by democratic planning system are suggested the expectation for market to work and to bring about efficiency and just welfare, simultaneously is unsuitable. Instead, mnovation in planning system become necessary and therefore is suggested.