LexM.L. JAIN & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-A
B
c
608
M.L. JAIN & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA
April 8, 1985
(0.CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P.SEN AND E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act 1954 Para 2 (a). Part III.
First Schedule Judicial Officer appointed as a High Court Judge-Calculation of
pension.on retirement-How determined.
Paragraph 2 of Part III of the !st Schedule to the High Court Judges
(Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, provides that the pension payable to a Judge
D
shall be-{a) the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules of his
service if he had not been appointed a Judge, fhis servJ'ce as a Judge being
treated as service therein for the purpo:;e of calculating that pension ; and (b) a
special additional pension of Rs. 700 per annum in respect of each completed
year of service for pension but in no case such additional pension shall exceed
Rs.3,500 per annum.
E
F
H
By a letter dated September 19, 1984, addressed to all Accountants-
General the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affai:rs indicated the me·
thod for calculation of a Judges' pension. It pro\ ided that : ( i) the service as
Judge of the High Court will count towards qualifying sc:rvice for pension in
his parent service or post, and (ii) pay for the purpose for calculating pension
under para 2 (a) shall be the pay which a Judge had d:ra\Vn or would have
drawn in the scale of pay of the post held by him in his ]parent :Qepartment,
preceding the date on which he was elevated as a Judge of the High Court,
including annual increments, if any, V.'hich he would have drawn upto the
Pate of his superannuation as a Government servant, a1d (i:ii) special additional
pension under para 2 (b) as provided in the High Court Judges (Condilions of
Service) Act 1954.
The petitioner was a member of the State Judicial Service. His total
period of service as a JudiciaJ Officer, otherwise than as a Judge of the High
Court was 29 years, 9 months and one day while his scrvk:e as a Judge of the
High Court was a period of 9 years and 21 days. According to the calculation
made by the respondent, the petitioner was entitled to a pension of Rs 15,320
per annum. This figure was arrived at on the basis that bad he continued as a
District and Sessions Judge, he would have retired on July 31, 1977, and on
-~-
~-
)
M.t. iAiN v. UNION
609 ;
that basis his pension was calculated at Rs.11, 820 per annum under ct'3use (a)
of para 2 of the First Schedule read with the Rajasthan Rules and to that figure
was added the additional pension of Rs.3,500 per year under Clause (b).of Para
2 of Schedule I. His tota! pension was determined at Rs.15,320 per annu.m. .
A
Allowing the Writ Petition.
HELD : I. Para 2(ii) of- the letter dated September 19, 1984 of the
Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs is a clear departure fro~ para 2,'
clause (a) of Schedule I to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) A.ct,
1954. Under clause (a) of para 2 of the Schedule I to the Ac\, the, retiring'"
Judges' entire service as a Judge has to be reckoned for the purpose of calculat-
ing his pension and for that purpose the last pay drawn by him bad to be the
pay drawn by him as a Judge of the High Court and not the pay tb8.t would
have been drawn by him as a District Judge, had he not been ap·poinfed· a
1''
High Court Judge. [612C-D]
In the instant case the petitioner had put in a total service of more than
38 years and 9 months including his service as a High Court Judge and ·his
ta~t pay drawn was Rs.3,500 per month, his pension would be Rs.I,525 per .mon· /
th. ·But since the Rajasthan Rules prescribed a ceiling of Rs. 1,500 . per month,
he was entitled to a pension of Rs.1,500 per month only under clause (a) of
para 2 of Schedule I. To this, the additional pensidn to be added under cl3.use
(b) was Rs.700 x 9-Rs.6,300 but here again the ceiling prescribed was Rs.J;'Soo'
per annum. The total pension would therefore be Rs.21,500 per annum:- But.
for the ceiling prescribed under the Rajasthan Rules.and clause (b) of para 2 of
Schedule I of the Act, he would have been entitled to Rs.24,600 per annum.'
[612G·613B}
· 2. The letter dated August 30, 1984 from the Government Of.India to
the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration is quashed and the pension o"f the:
petitioner is refixed at Rs.21,500 per annum. [613·EJ
3. In the recent budget proposals the ceiling on the pension of civil
servants is to be lifted. It is hoped the situation woExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.