M.L. JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an application by Shri. M.L.Jain, retired Judge of the Delhi High Court questioning the constitutional propriety and legality of the order issued by the Pay & Accounts Officer, Delhi Administration (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 redetermination of his pension and other pensionary benefits in view of the change in law brought about by High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1986 and 1988 (Act Nos. 38 of 1986 and 20 of 1988). This order must be read in continuation of the earlier order delivered by this Court in M.L. Jain & Anr. Vs. Union of India (1985) 2 S C C 355 by this court made a direction for payment of pension to the petitioner at Rs. 21,500 per annum in view of the two ceilings then operating against him viz, (a) a ceiling under the Rajasthan Rules providing that the maximum amount of pension should not exceed Rs. 1500 per annum and (b) that under cl. (b) of Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

(2.) According to the petitioner, in view of the change in law, the amount of pension at Rs. 41, 600 per annum w.e.f. Jan., 1 1986 which amount has to be further increased to Rs. 46,100 per annum w.e.f. November 1, 1986 in place of the pension of Rs. 21,500 as earlier directed.

(3.) The question that falls for determination in the order is whether consequent upon the improvement of the service conditions including pension and other benefits by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Acts, 1986 and 1988 and pursuant to the office Memoranda issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare dated April 14, 1987 and April 16, 1987. The pension of the petitioner Shri M.L. Jain has to be re-calculated and re-determined at Rs. 41,600 p.a., w.e.f. Jan. 1, 1986 which amount has to be further increased to Rs. 46,100 per annum w.e.f. Nov. 1, 1986 in place of the pension of Rs. 21,500 as earlier directed. In view of the importance of the question involved, we requested Shri. K. Parasaran, learned Attorney General to assist the Court. We are greatly beholden to the learned Attorney General for the assistance that he has rendered.