LexM.L. JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' B M.L. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA AUGUST 18, 1988 [A.P. SEN ANDS. NATARAJAN,.JJ.] High Court Judges (Conditions a/Service) Act, 1954/High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Rules, .1956: Section 15 and Para 2 of Part. III of First Schedule/Rule 2-Retired High Court Judges- Recalculation and redetermination of pension-Improvement of service C conatiions including pension by virtUe of Amendment Act 38/86 and ·20/88-Constitutional propriety and legality of Ministry of Law & Justice letter dated December 18, 1987 giving liberty to State Govern- ment to determine the pension. ·D , The petitioner, before his appointment as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. He was later transferred ·and appointed as a Judge of the High 'court of Delhi. He retired on July 21, 1984. The petitioner had opted, 'for the purpose of his pension, for Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Under this provi- E si9n, the petitioner was entitled to a basic pension as admissible under ·the ordinary rules of his Service if he had not been appointed a Judge, and an additional pension for each completed year of service as a Judge of the High Court. The High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, F 1986 and 1988 brought about improvements in the service conditions, including pension, of the High Court Judges. The Government of India ' subsequently issued If scheme for rationalisation of pension structure for pre-January 1, 1984 pensioners. Pursuant thereto, the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, issued letter dated December 18, 1987 giving directions to the Accountants Gen'<rals/P~y and Accounts Officers as to the manner in which the basic pension of the High Court G Judges·governed by the provisions of.Part Hi of the First Schedule to ihe High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 may be revised with effect from I. !.'i986, as in the case ofthe employees of Central ·Government, ·or from 'some other. date the ·respective State Govern- ments may decide to adopt these orders or an independent order issued 'H ·by'them. "49ii M.L. JAIN v.U.O.I. 497 The petitioner has claimed higher pension on the ground that service Judges with lesser service, who belonged to Higher Judicial Service of some other States, have been granted higher pension ·while he has been subjected to a discriminatory treatment in the matter. Allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, it was, HELD: (l) This Court fails to appreciate the propriety of the letter dated December 18, 1987 of the Miuistry of Law & Justice giving liberty to different State Governments to deny the benefit of the revised ·pension to the Service Judges consequent upon the enactment of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendments Acts, 1986 and 1988 read along with Office Memoranda issued by the- Government of India, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, dated April 14, 19_87 and April 16, 1987 and rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956. Such a direction is constitutionally impermissible as offending Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is tantamount to denial of equal treatment to persons belonging to the same class without any rational basis .. [503F·ff; 504A] (2) While the salary of Judges of the High Court is charged on the Consolidated Fund of the States, the pension of High Court Judges is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. [SOOE] A B c D ORIGINAL· JURISDICTION: Civil Miscellaneous Petition ·E No. 18044 of 1980. IN Writ Petition No. 16093 of 1984. (U oder Articl~ 32 of the Constitution of India). Tapash Ray. Ms. Pratibha Jain and S.K. Jain for the Petitioner. · K. Parasaran, Solicitor General, Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Responde~t. The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER ·- . . . . ' - ·- . - - • • • ,! • \. G This is an application by Shri M.L. Jain-, retired -Judge of the il)elhi 'High ·court questioning the ·constitutional propriety and legaiity H A B' c D E F G H 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. of the order issued by the Pay & Accounts Officer, Delhi Administra- tion (High Court & Miscellaneous), New Delhi dated July 12, 1988 purporting to fix his pension at Rs.26,000 per annum and for an appropriate direction for re-determination of his pension and other pensionary ben
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.