UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 10-02-2005 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directing to fix the pension of the applicant (second respondent) for his service as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal under Rule 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Rules read with para 9 of Part-I of Schedule I to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and as amended by Central Act 7 of 1999 at Rs.51,190 per annum from 1-6-1998 and other allowable benefits, the Railway Administration has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) (a). The applicant-second respondent herein was directly elevated from the Bar as a Judge of the Madras High Court on 23-3-1990 and he retired on 31-5-1995 on attaining the age of 62 years. When he was serving as a Judge of the Madras High Court, he was appointed as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi under the order dated 20-01-1995 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways. The appointment was for a period of 5 years from the date of his joining the Railway Claims Tribunal or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever was earlier. He assumed charge as Chairman, Railway Board on 1-3-1995 and retired on 31-5-1998 on attaining the age of 65 years. At the time of appointment, the President of India has intimated the nomination of the applicant as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal with the prior approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court, Madras. The order dated 3-1-1995 mentioned the condition of service, according to which, the time spent by the second respondent as Judge, High Court, Madras in the performance of the function as Chairman will count as actual service within the meaning of para 11 (b)(i) of Part D of Second Schedule to the Constitution of India read with Section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The applicant will not be entitled to any extra remuneration for the work except Travelling Allowance and Dearness Allowance as admissible under the High Court Judges (Travelling Allowance) Rules, 1956. The said order also stipulated that the salaries and allowances payable to the second respondent herein as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Conditions of Service by which he was to be governed will be in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Salaries and allowances and conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1989 as amended from time to time. (b). The second respondent, after demitting his office on 31-5-98, made representations requesting for calculation of his pensionary benefits and other allied benefits such as commutation, gratuity and leave encashment for the period of service rendered by him as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal from 1-3-1995 to 31-5-1998 in terms of High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and not in terms of Railway Claims Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members), Rules, 1989. By communication dated 29-5-2002, the said request of the second respondent was negatived and challenging the same initially he filed Writ Petition No. 25298 of 2002 on the file of this Court. On the orders of this court, the second respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A.No. 441 of 2003 challenging the communication dated 29-5-2002 and seeking other relief. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that Rule 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and conditions of service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1989 specifically deals with conditions of service and other perquisites available to the Chairman and as per the same, notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 4 to 14, the condition of service and other perquisites available to a Chairman shall be the same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court. In other words, according to him, the retirement benefits payable to him for his service as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal from 1-3-95 to 31-5-1998 shall be the same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court on his retirement. The Railway administration has not considered the case of the applicant in accordance with Rule 15 of the RCT Rules, 1989 read with para 9 of Part I of First Schedule to High Court Judges (Condition of Service) Act, 1954 as amended by Central Act 7/99 and wrongly interpreted the provisions and denied his rights of the applicant as prayed for in his representation.

(3.) IT is seen from the representations of the 2nd respondent dated 27-3-99, 3-4-99, 23-6-99, 30-7-99, 4-8-99 and 11-10-2000 made to the petitioners, that he (second respondent herein) has made a claim for pensionary benefits and other allied benefits such as commutation, gratuity and leave encashment for the period of service rendered by him as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal from 1-6-1995 to 31-5-1998 based only on Rule 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "RCT Rules, 1989") and reference was made to the relevant provisions of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 only for the purpose of calculation of the quantum of the pensionary benefits payable to him as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal in terms of Rule 15 of RCT Rules, 1989. IT is further seen that on his appointment as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal and pursuant to the Presidential request, the second respondent herein relinquished the office of Judge of the Madras High Court on 28-2-95 and assumed charge as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal on 1-3-95. IT is also seen that on 31-5-1995 on completing the age of 62 years, he retired as a Judge of the High Court. IT is not in dispute that for the period from 1-6-95 to 31-5-98 for his service as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, he was getting only the salary of a High Court Judge, namely, Rs.8000/- per month in terms of para 10 Part D of Schedule to Constitution of India as it stood then from the Railway Claims Tribunal. After relinquishing his office as Judge of the Madras High Court on 28-2-95 during "actual service" period as High Court Judge between 1-3-95 and 31-5-98 according to the second respondent, he did not draw any salary from the Madras High Court or State of Tamil Nadu. IT is also his claim that he had not drawn extra remuneration in contravention of Presidential request. IT is not in dispute that after the expiry of the "actual service period" contemplated in the Presidential request, for his service as Chairman, RCT, the second respondent was drawing the pay fixed under Rule 3 of the RCT Rules, 1989. Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with pay, and allowances payable to Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the RCT. IT is not in dispute that there is no other option to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the RCT except to draw the salary fixed as per the provisions of Rule 3 of the RCT Rules. Rule 4 deals with dearness allowance and city compensatory allowance Rule 5 relates to retirement from parent service on appointment as Member Rule 6 speaks about leave Rule 7 refers to leave sanctioning authority Rule 8 refers to pension Rule 9 Provident Fund Rule 10 journeys on tour/transfer Rule 11 leave travel Rule 12 accommodation Rule 13 facility of conveyance Rule 14 facilities for medical treatment Rule 15 conditions of service etc., of the Chairman. Among those Rules, Rules 8 and 15 are relevant which read as follows: "Rule 8. Pension:- (1) Every person appointed to the Tribunal as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member shall be entitled to pension: Provided that no such pension shall be payable to such a person - (i) if he has put in less than two years of service or (ii) if he has been removed from an office in the Tribunal under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act. (2) Pension under sub-rule (1) shall be calculated at the rate of rupees seven hundred per annum for each completed year of service or a part thereof and irrespective of the number of years of service in the Tribunal, the maximum amount of pension shall not exceed rupees three thousand five hundred per annum. Provided that the aggregate amount of pension payable under this rule, together with the amount of any pension including commuted portion of pension (if any) drawn or entitled to be drawn while holding office in the Tribunal, shall not exceed four thousand rupees per mensem. Rule 15. Conditions of Service etc., of the Chairman. Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 4 to 14 of these rules, the conditions of service and other perquisites available to the Chairman shall be the same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court."