JUSTICE NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions have been filed by seven Writ Petitioners raising same questions of law and fact and therefore they are decided by this common judgment. The assertions made in one of the Writ Petitions being W.P.No. 11420/2001 are referred for the purpose of disposal of these Writ Petitions.

(2.) All the petitioners had been Judges of the High Court at various points of time. All the Judges have been sanctioned pension at the rate of Rs.13,000.00 per month and the family pension is fixed at 30% of the pension payable to these Judges. The grievance of the petitioners is that, Section 17-A of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as amended by Act 7 of 1999 is discriminatory and offending to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Section-17-A reads as under:

(3.) It is contended that while fixing the family pension the High Court Judges have not been even treated on par with the Central Government employees. A Secretary to the Government of India draws the same pay as the Judge of the High Court. In case of Secretary to Government of India family pension is calculated at 30% of pay whereas for the High Court Judge it is calculated at 30% of his pension. A Secretary to Government of India draws Rs. 26,000.00 as his pay which is the pay drawn by a Judge of the High Court. If they have full service to their credit both of them shall draw a pension of Rs. 13,000.00. As regards family pension the Judge would draw 30% of Rs. 13,000/- as family pension which would mean Rs. 3,900.00 whereas the Secretary to Government would be entitled to Rs.7,800/-. Such a provision in High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1986 has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in O. Chinnapa Reddy v. Govt. of India which was a Writ Petition filed by Justice O. Chinnapa Reddy a former Judge of the Supreme Court. The Court struck down Section 16-A of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of service) Amendment Act, 1986 as being discriminatory. The question which arose before the Division Bench of this Court was,