LexM.L. JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
M.L. JAIN
v.
UNION OF INDIA
JANDA.RY 22, 1991
B
[_RANGANATH M~SRA, ~J AND M.fl. Ki\NlA, J.l
The High Court Judges (Conditions pf servicf!) Act, 1954-First
Schf!dufe Part lfl Para 2(b )-,-Ceiling on additional pensip,rz pf lud1J'3s-
Held ultra vires.
"-- _
P~titioner was a member of fhe State Judicial Service and was
{:::
elevated as a Judge of the High Court qn 1.7.1975, find was later trans~
ferred to another High Court from where~ retired on 21.7.1984. A
dispute relating to his pension was disposed of by this Court on 9.4.1985
fixing it at Rs.21,500 per annum. Meanwhile, the High Court Judges
(Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 was amended by Central Acts 38/86
o and 20/88, and he applied under the said Amending Acts asking for
benefits there-under, and this Court refixed the petitioner's pension at
Rs.41,600' per annum w.e.f. 1.1.1986, and ~t Rs.46,100 per ~l!m
w.e.f. 1.11.1986.·
In an interlocutory petition the petition~r ch~µeqg~ t.b.e 4;eiling
E
on additional pension appearing in clause (h) qf par@~!l~h 2 pf Piµi ill
oft~~ Firsf Sc~~4ule to the Q:igb Court Judges (Conditions of Servh:e)
>-
Act, 1954.
Allowing the petitimh tb.is ~!>urt,
F
HELD: 1. There was llO justification to introduce a further ceiling
G
of Rs~~,9~ ptirc ?11n11111 irre.spe~th't: of tb.e years of completed servic(l
rendered a11d ~Hgw 11 disctjnlinat.iQll to QP.tm•te, Qp~~ tb.e pr.pviSQ ltas fl
limit w~ich ~e~ts the P!!rpo~e. ~Iler~ is no basis fQr the furtller Unlit of
Rs.8,000. [101A]
2. The ceiling of Rs.8,000 is not necessary t!l be imposed and if
that is applied, a situation giving rise to tll,e flPpUc11mm of Article 14 of
. the C911sm11tioq d,oes ar~. (JOUl;]
3~ Fixing tl~e pe.nsiQJJ. at Rs.48,0()0 per annum held that the cell-
j-
ing in P?ragr11p'1 2(b) of P?rt IJI o( the First Sch.edule is unsustamable
H
~µ~~r Article i4 Qfthe Ccm~tftllti~n and would npt lte oper!ltive, (101Fl
98
M.L. JAIN V. U.0.1.
99
1
ORIGINAL JURISDJCTlON: Interlocutory Application No. 1
A
_ ~-, of 1989.
-~'
IN
W.P. N?· 16093of1984etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jpdi~),
S.M. Jain, S.K. Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain and Pn1.geep Agarwal for
the Petitioner.
·
Arun Jaitly, Additional Solicitor General, Kail11.slt Vasdev and C
Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered:
,Petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and
was elevated as a Jµdge of the Rajasthan High Court on Ju\ly 1, 1975.
D
He was transferred to the pelpi High Court from where he retired on
July 21, 1984. A dispµ!e relatiµg to his pension became the subject-
matteT'of a writ petition before this Qeurt and was disposed of on April
9, 1985 (1985 2 SCC 3~~). Thi~ Co»rt fi~ed his pension at Rs.21,500
per annum.
In the meantime. certain Phnnges in th~ High ~pµrt Judges (Con-
ditions of Service) Act, 1954, were .. prgu~lH 11bpµf, fif§t!y, b,y 9@i1tral
Act 38/86 and again by Central Act 20/88. Petjtioner !'!PPlied to this
Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 18044/88 asking fqr benefits
under the Amending Act, This C::o.1.m PY
it~ fl~~isiQp PJl ;\µgust
18, 1988, refixed petitioner's pension lit Rs.41,690 per finnum with F
...._
effect from January l, 1986, ancl 11t R~,46, 100 per aI}nUill with effect
from November 1, 1986, keeping th~ twp amendments referred to
above in view (1988 4 SCC 12l). Jn paragraph 19 ofthis Court's order,
--/
it was stated;
·
ffWe refr;:i.in from expressip.g any opinion as to the G
effect Of liftip.~ .. of the ceiling On the special additional
pension at Rs,8,000 per annum placed by clause (b) of
paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule. The qµestion
really does not arise for our consideration at the moment
and is left open."
H
A
E
'
f
p991) 1 S.C.R.
Tpe p~~i~iop.er q~s p.ow applied tq this Court challenging the
ceiJing oq aqditiopal pens.ioQ. appearing ip clause (b) of paragraph 2 of ;,-.
P~f~ III of *e fi~~ ~~p_e,qule to tpe High Co~rt Judges (Conditions of
~ervice) A~t pf 1954. ni,e first Schedule deals ~ith pensiop of Judges.
J~dges in H~gh ~o•m ~re r.e~r~ited from three soµrces:
(p) ~em~ers b~longi11~ to tre former Indian Ciyil Seryice; and
( c) officers of the Stat!! Jµdicial Seryice.
Jq tpis cas~ V(f! 11re concem!!d with Part ~II as petitioner had been
e~evated as ;i Ju~ge of the High Court from t~e Rajasthan Stat~ Judi-
,cial Service. In r~spect Of s:u~h a Judge the pension payable js pre-
'scribed tp be:
·
·Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.