ND P NAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ND P NAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
~·· t 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 8, 2007 
[H.K. SEMA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.) 
B 
t 
Service Law: 
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954; S. l 5(1)(b), Part 
111 of First Schedule/Kera/a Service Rules; Rule 12(23) and 62: 
C 
Pension-Appellant retired as Judge of High Court in 1980-lssuance 
of Circular by Government of India rationalizing pension structure of Judges 
w.e.f 1.1.1986-Fixation of pension on revision-Challenged on the ground 
that ordinary pension not calculated by taking into consideration emoluments 
drawn at the time of retirement and additional pension fIXed by following the 
ceiling limit in terms of provisions under Part Ill of First Schedule-Held: 
Dearness allowance and Special allowance were not specially classed as 
pay by State Government under the provisions of Rule 62-Jf pay, dearness 
allowance and other allowances already included in emoluments with 
reference to its general/normal meaning, there was no reason to again 
specify them in Rule 62-Ru/e 62 intended to clarify that only pay and 
dearness pay would be considered as emoluments for the purpose of calculating 
pension-Amendments made in provisions of 1968 Act clarify that emoluments 
for the purpose of calculating pension comprise of only pay and dearness 
pay-Hence, the emoluments of the appellant rightly taken as Rs.35001- p.m. 
for the purpose of calculating pension- Since neither the ceiling of 
Rs.8,0001- introduced by the State Government in terms of the Circular issued 
by the Government of India effective from 1. JI .1986 nor the earlier ceiling 
of Rs.3,5001- justified/valid, the additional pension could appropriately be 
fIXed at Rs.5,6001- per annum w.e.f 1.1.1986 and Rs.12,8001- per annum w.e.f 
1.11.1986 in terms of instructions/Rules-Kerala Services Act, 1968. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Emoluments' and 'pay'-Meaning of in the context of fIXation of pension 
of a retired Judge in terms of Kera/a Service Rules. 
769 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant entered the Kerala Higher Judicial Service as a directly 
recruited District & Sessions Judge and was later elevated as a Judge of the 
~ . 
Kerala High Court. He retired on 31.7.1980. The pension payable to High 
Court Judges is governed by Chapter III of the High Court Judges (Conditions 
of Service) Act, 1954. The appellant was governed by Part Ill of the First 
B 
Schedule to the Act as he did not opt for pension under Part I of that Schedule 
of the Act The Government oflndia, vide Circular dated 18.12.1987, notified 
the Accountant Generals of all States that the ordinary pension admissible to 
High Court Judges under Para 2(a) of Part Ill of the First Schedule to the 
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 may be revised with effect 
t 
from 1.1.1986. It permitted the respective State Governments to either adopt 
c the said 0.M. dated 16.4.1987 or issue independent orders on similar lines, 
subject to the maximum ceiling as stipulated in Schedule Ill to the Act. By 
order dated 19.10.1989, the Government ofKerala directed that the pension 
of the Judges of the High Court, who have been promoted from the State Higher 
Judicial Service and falling under Part III of the First Schedule to the Act, 
D 
shall be revised with effect from 1.1.1986 in accordance with the rates referred 
to in the O.M. dated 16.4.1987 issued by the Government of India. Accordingly, 
the pension of the appellant was revised. 
The appellant challenged the pension so fixed on the ground that the 
~ 
ordinary pension ought to have been calculated, by taking the emoluments 
E drawn at the time of retirement and that the additional pension under para 
2(b) of Part III of First Schedule to the Act may be fixed without reference to 
any ceiling. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition holding 
that the appellant was entitled to a pension of Rs.35,100/- per annum from 
1.1.1986 and Rs.47,900/- per annum from 1.11.1986. Union oflndia challenged 
the order of the Single Judge of the High Court, which was allowed by the 
F High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the 
Single Judge and affirmed the pension as fixed. A review petition filed by the 
I< 
appellant was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court In the appeal 
...._
filed before this Court, the Court vide judgment dated 16.4.2004 held that 
having regard to Rule 62, 'emolument' for calculating pension,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.