M RAMA KRISHNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question falls for consideration-in these two writ petitions. The question is regarding right of District Judge Grade I (DJ), who is appointed as Upa-Lokayukta under Andhra pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act 1983 (Lokayukta Act, for brevity), to claim dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief (DA/dr) on the pension payable to Upa-Lokayukta after remitting office after completion of term of five years. Petitioners in these two cases, who held office of Upa-Lokayukta contend that a District Judge who is appointed as Upa-Lokayukta is entitled to claim DR on pension drawn as DJ as well as Upa-Lokayukta. The Government admits entitlement of petitioners of DA on pension payable as District Judges but oppose payment of DA on pension payable as Upa-Lokayukta. Whether they are entitled to two pensions and two DAs or two pensions and one DA is contentious issue in these matters and hence this common order.

(2.) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute. Petitioner in W. P. No. 3502 of 2000 (hereafter, first petitioner) and petitioner in w. P. No. 4990 of 2003 (hereafter, second petitioner) were members of Andhra pradesh State Higher Judicial Service. Even before they were superannuated as DJs, they were appointed as Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3 (1 ) (c) of Lokayukta Act. While in office as Upa-Lokayukta, they were formally retired as DJs and pension was fixed, which includes pension and DA or dearness Relief in the case of second petitioner. But in the case of first petitioner, he was not sanctioned DA on the pension, on the ground that he was employed as upa-Lokayukta. Therefore, first petitioner while holding office as Upa-Lokayukta filed w. P. No. 3502 of 2000 seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay DA on pension as per rules. In the case of second petitioner he was in fact sanctioned pension as District Judge including DA but after he laid down office of Upa-Lokayukta, while fixing pension for his service as Upa-Lokayukta, he was denied DA on the ground that he is already in receipt of DA on the pension drawn as District Judge. Therefore he sought a writ of mandamus seeking DA on pension as Upa-Lokayukta.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, it is admitted by all that both the petitioners are drawing pension for their services as District Judge. They are also drawing pension for their service as Upa-Lokayukta as per Lokayukta act and Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta, Upa-Lokayukta (Condition of Sendee) Rules 1987 (hereafter, Lokayukta Rules ). The contentious issue is this: When both former Upa-Lokayuktas are drawing pension and DA admissible on pension drawn by them for their services as District Judge, are they entitled again for DA on pension being paid to them for their services as Upa-Lokayukta