UPENDRALAL WAGHRAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on merits.

(2.) A former Hon'ble Judge of this High Court has sought justice in this writ petition regarding his pension. Hon'ble Sri Justice Upendralal Waghray, a permanent Judge of this High Court was to retire on 15-7-1992 on attaining the age of superannuation. But before his superannuation he was appointed as Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 15-11-1991 for a term of five years or till he attained the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier. He retired on 15-7-1995 on attaining the age of 65 years, which according to him was much earlier to the completion of tenure of five years. The claim for pension, according to him is that he is entitled to Rs.30,870/- per annum for the services rendered by him as Judge of the High Court and Rs.15,750/- for the services rendered as Chairman of the A.P.A.T. in view of the amendment to para 9 Part I of the High Court Judges Act 38 of 1956. It is also his case that he is entitled to other benefits like Dearness Allowance etc., on such pension amount. His claim as such was also conceded by Respondent No.l-Union of India in its letter No.A/11014/18/95 dated nil, which was communicated to Respondent No.2-Government of Andhra Pradesh, referring to its letter No.79/SPF B/96-1, dated 9-4-1996. The Union of India has also pointed out in its letter that such view is supported by a dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.6020 of 1994 - Union of India vs. Mrs. P. Banerjee and another reported in (JT 1995 (8) 357) clarifying the position as to the rights of a Judge of a High Court serving in the capacity of Chairman of a Tribunal.

(3.) Having heard both sides, this Court is not in a position to understand as to how Respondent No.2-Govemment of Andhra Pradesh is questioning such a claim of the petitioner. The services of a Judge of a High Court, the benefits attached to it are governed by different provisions altogether particularly to settle pension and pensionary benefits. Then such benefits are to be granted while a Judge serves in any such Tribunal. That is how the two periods for fixing the pension for such Judges has been properly explained by the petitioner, which is accepted by the Central Government supported by a pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the pension will be fixed for the period of a judge serving in a High Court separately from the pension while serving as Chairman of such a Tribunal. That is how in so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, for having served as a Judge of the High Court has been rightly determined,, regarding which the petitioner has no grievance. The grievance of the petitioner is in regard to settlement of pension while he served as Chairman of A.P. A.T. The respondents have not questioned either the period for which the petitioner served as Chairman of the Tribunal or for the remaining period of his service after retiring as Judge of the High Court or the quantum of pension so claimed. The relief thus claimed by the petitioner to revise his pension as Chairman of A.P.A.T. at the rate of Rs.15,700/- per annum instead of Rs.4,800/- per annum in addition to other benefits like dearness allowance etc., are very much justified. The petitioner is also entitled to gratuity on such computed years of service as Chairman of A.P.A.T. under Section 17-A of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Patently, he has made sufficient efforts to get the claim from the respondents, and in the opinion of this Court the Respondent No. 2-Government of Andhra Pradesh has postponed the matter without any justification. This Court hopes atleast now the respondents will expedite the matter and refix the pension in accordance with the claim made by the petitioner and as conceded by the Central Government.