UNION OF INDIA Vs. N. DHARMADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent who had served as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) during the period from 10.7.1989 to 9.7.1994 claims retiral benefits as applicable to the Judges of the High Court. The benefits were governed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, ViceChairmen and Members) Rules, 1985(Rules). Rule 8 of the Rules quantifies the pension as follows:

(2.) It was by amendment of the Administrative Tribunals Act (Act) by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 that Section 8 thereof amended as regards the terms and conditions of service of Chairman. Section 8 of the Act as amended reads thus:

(3.) The learned single Judge has by the judgment impugned set aside Ext.P6 order of the Government of India rejecting the request of the respondent for pensionary benefits as applicable to the Judges of the High Court. The learned single Judge has further declared that the respondent would be entitled to add ten years practice as an Advocate as qualifying service for pension. The learned single Judge in so doing has drawn inspiration from the decision in Ramakrishnam Raju P. v. Union of India and others, 2014 AIR(SC) 1619 pertaining to Judges. The Union of India, Pay and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Registrar of the CAT are in appeal before us assailing the judgment aforesaid as laying down a bad precedent in law.