M RAMACHANDRA RAJU Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This WritPetition is filed by a former Judge of this Court. He was initially appointed as District and Sessions Judge by direct recruitment on 13-6-1959 and was elevated to the High Court Bench on 7-7-1969 and retired as a Judge on 15-7-1978 on reaching the age of 62 years. He was entitled to be paid pensionary benefits as calculated under Part III of the High Court Judges(Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). At the time of his retirement the computation of pensionary benefits being adopted by the respondents under Part-Ill was lower than that payable to a Judge appointed by direct recruitment who was entitled to calculation of pension under Part-I of the Act. The Petitioner, therefore, elected to receive pension under Part I of the Act and was being paid accordingly.

(2.) The Supreme Court in the first M.L.Jain's casc reported in ML.Jain vs. Union of India' held that calculation of pension payable to a Part-III Judge based on a notional last drawn pay in the service as District Judge was not correct and that it should be determined adopting the last pay drawn as a High Court Judge for the purpose of calculation of pension. This would result in a Judge entitled to the pension under Part-III to more beneficial pension than that of a Part-I Judge. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Government of India issued a circular dated 29-4-1985 to compute the pension in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and even past cases may be revived and pension re-fixed wher ever necessary and arrears of pension may be allowed from the date of the pension became payable. The petitioner requested for his pension being determined under Part III and for payment of arrears also. At that stage, the Act was amended by the Act 38 of 1986 raising the salaries and pension payable to the High Court Judges with effect from 1-11-1986. Later, the Government of India decided that even Judges, who retired prior to the enforcement of the amendment Act 38 of 1986 were entitled to its benefits. The Act was further amended by Act 20 of 1988 with retrospective effect from 1-11-1986. Apart from this, the Government of India decided to extend the benefit of ad-hoc relief to the High Court Judges with effect from 1-1-1986 to 31-10-1986 on lines similar to those it was being given to other class I Government Servants. At that stage, the Supreme Court in the second M.L.Jain's case reported in ML Jain vs. Union of India held that the action of some State Governments in denying the benefit of fixation of basic pension to Judges (i.e. those to whom Part-Ill applies in accordance with the Judgment of the Supreme Court and the Amendment Acts 38/86 and 20/88) was not valid.

(3.) The present writ petition was filed on 19-12-1989 complaining that the petitioner was not being given the pensionary benefits as calculated under Part-Ill and in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court. After filing of the writ petition that is, sometime in August, 1990, the Government of India took a policy decision to permit such of the Judges who are entitled to have their pension calculated under Part III but, had earlier elected to receive pension under Part-I (like the petitioner) to opt afresh for the pension being calculated under Part-IH. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's option in this behalf has been accepted.