CHANDRASEKHARA MENON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a retired judge of this Court. His career as a judge of this Court has been described as "one long glorious straight line". THE petitioner is the third retired High Court Judge who had approached this Court for settling pensionary claims in the recent years. THE petitioner's pension and allied matters are governed by the High Court judges (Conditions of service) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act. ). Following the provisions of the Act the petitioner was granted a pension of rs. 16,000/- per annum evidenced by Ext. P1. THEre was a revision of pension payable to the High Court Judges who retired before 1. 11. 1986. THE petitioner retired on 19,12. 1983. Consequent on the revision of the pension, -the basic pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2,191/-per mensem. In 1991 the pension was again revised to Rs. 3,144/-per mensem. In addition to the basic pension, the petitioner is also receiving dearness relief on pension according to the rates in force from time to lime. THE present rate of dearness relief as on the date of the filing of the Original Petition, is contained in Ext. P2 dated 7. 4. 1995. In accordance with Ext. P2, the petitioner is receiving dearness relief on his pension at the rate of 81% subject to a minimum of Rs. 2,820/- per mensem.

(2.) THE percentage of dearness relief on pension is the same to all the serving judges of the High Court, All India Service Officers and other Central Government officials. Whenever the dearness allowance is increased in the case of Central Government officers, a corresponding increase is ordered in the case of judges, both serving and retired. Ext. P3 dated 28. 3. 1995 is the order by which the percentage of dearness allowance payable to central Government officers was fixed. By the letter dated 28. 4. 1995 the above increase was extended to the sitting judges of the High Court. THE complaint of the petitioner is that though the percentage of rate of dearness relief and dearness allowance for all the persons covered by the Government Orders is the same, the amount that is taken into account for payment of the dearness relief for retired judges is different. THE petitioner has illustrated the above disparity by giving a table which is as follows:

(3.) THIS Court also had occasion to consider the concept of-'pension' and 'the dearness relief on pension in the filing reported in narayanan v. Union of India (1994 (1) KLT 897 ). Guttal, J. in a well considered judgment has observed as follows: "10. As the time passed by, the pensioner found that his money was not able to buy, as much as it did on the date of his retirement. Inflation eroded his capacity to buy the necessities within the amount of pension. The Union of India, aware of the need to keep the ex-servicemen living in dignity, stepped in by accepting the reports of the Pay Commissions and decided to make up for the lost value of the pension. The device adopted by the central Government was to pay to the pensioners the dearness relief on pension, just as dearness allowance is paid to its employees. The amount of dearness relief, is an additive to the original pension. It has not been absorbed into the original pension to make the two sums into one whole fixed sum of money. The relief on pension is, by its very natural variable -it increases or decreases with the cost of living. Therefore, it is illogical to test the validity of the petitioner's submissions on the consideration whether the relief on pension has been absorbed into the basic pension. The exaggated emphasis on the separate existence of the number, representing the relief on pension is misleading. It ignores the fundamental fact that that pension is not an arithmetical figure. Pension is the value of reward of compensation for past services. " Mr. Parameswaran, learned counsel for the Central government, urged, with his characteristic tenacity, that pension is always a fixed sum and therefore the "additive" known as the amount of relief on pension nevery absorbed in basic pension, is not a component of pension. THIS argument is based on the traditional concept of pension when the amounts of pension were unalterable, because in those days, the value of money was stable. In the current economy of the country the value of money is not stable. Therefore it is not rational to expect that the amount of relief on pension together with the original pension could be expressed as an unalterable fixed constant sum. Pension is the value of the compensation for past services. It is realised through the mechanism of granting relief on pension. In this process of the cost of living adjustment, it is inevitable that the total sum received by the pensioner varies with the cost of living. The argument of Mr. Parameswaran is not tenable. " 11. To simplify the matter I propose to illustrate why relief on pension is the inseparable component of pension: Aware of the bewildering rate at which the value of the rupee fell, eroding the capacity of the original amount, received by the pensioner, to provide a decent living, the Central Government stepped into restore the amount of pension toils intended value. THIS cost of living adjustment may be illustrated thus: The pension granted, say, in 1970 ~ Rs. X Suppose in 1975 the inflation reduced the amount of pension to ~ Rs. X-5 The Central Government added Rs. 5 to secure to the pensioners the intended value of Rs. X ~ Rs. (X-5)+ 5 = Rs. X Therefore, the additional amount of Rs. 5 was granted for the purpose of continued receipt by the pensioner of the original value of Rs. X. Therefore, the pension is always the value of Rs. X. In the words of the fourth Central Pay Commission, this adjustment by granting relief on Rs. 5 " is a necessary concomitant of the very concept of pensionary benefits".