N. D. P. NAMBOODIRIPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner retired from service on superannuation as a Judge of the High Court of Kerala on 31st July 1980. He started his official career as a District Judge. Later, he worked as an Officer in the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, New Delhi on deputation. He was elevated to the post of Judge, High Court on 3rd April 1972. Thus he had a total service of 18 years plus 5 years Bar Service as provided in the Kerala Service Rules. Average emoluments drawn by him at the time of his retirement was Rs. 3,500. By Exhibit P-1 order, pension and other benefits due to the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 17,300 per annum. Later, pension was revised to Rs. 32,720 per annum with effect from 1st January 1986 to 31st October 1986 and at Rs. 37,720 per annum with effect from 1st November 1986. Petitioner challenges the orders fixing the pension at the above rates.

(2.) Petitioner entered service as a member of the Higher Judiciary. He has put in 8 years of service as a Judge of the High Court. He retired from service on 31st July 1980. He has to his credit 23 years of service for pension. He opted, for the purpose of his pension, for Part III of First Schedule to the High Court Judges' (Conditions of service) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Para.2 of Part III of the First Schedule, with which I am concerned in this Original Petition, was as follows:

(3.) The stand taken by the respondents is that petitioner is entitled to have his pension calculated in accordance with the provisions contained in Para.2(a) of Part III, Schedule I of the Act only. It is their further case that petitioner cannot get the benefits under Para.2 (b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the Act for the purpose of finding out pension under the rationalised pension scheme. In support of this, they rely on the two decisions of the Supreme Court in M. L. Jain v. Union of India ( AIR 1985 SC 619 = AIR 1989 SC 669 ). In the above mentioned decisions, it is argued, the pensionary benefits of Mr. M. L. Jain were fixed solely on the basis of the provisions contained in Para.2 (a). Such a course, it is argued, should be adopted in the instant case as well. I find it difficult to accept this argument. Sri M. L. Jain had to his credit more than 38 years of service. Consequently, he was entitled to full pension. As per the rules governing the payment of pension, the , maximum pension payable to a Government servant was fixed at Rs. 1,500 per month. The pension due to Mr. Jain, as per the provisions contained in para 2 (a) of Part III, Schedule I of the Act, was much more than Rs. 1500, the maximum which could be claimed by Mr. Jain. So, in his case, the effect of para 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the Act did not arise for consideration. In the case of petitioner, he is not entitled to get full pension because he has not got 30 years of service to his credit. Consequently, his monthly pension calculated under para 2 (a) is far below the maximum fixed by the rules. In such a situation is he not entitled to the benefits coming within the purview of Para.2 (b)