RAMKRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this case, was a Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh till his retirement on 20-1-1986. At the time of his retirement the salary of a Judge of the High Court according to the Constitution was Rs. 3.500/-. By the Constitution (Fifty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1986 the IInd Schedule to the Constitution was amended to raise the salary of a Judge of the High Court from Rs. 3.500/- to Rs. 8,000/-The Fifty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution came into force w.e.f. 1-4-1986. Thus, the salary last drawn by the petitioner was at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month. The petitioner was paid terminal benefits under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. By memorandum dated 23/12/1985 (Annexure P/1 to the petition) the petitioner's pension was fixed at Rs. 11,200/- per annum and a lump sum payment of Rs. 16,333-35 paise was sanctioned to him as death-cum-retirement gratuity. The rate at which the Family Pension would be payable in the case of the petitioner was also fixed by the aforesaid memorandum. By a memorandum dated 26-3-1987 (Annexure P/2 to the petition) the General Administration Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh sanctioned payment of amount in lieu of leave standing to the credit of the petitioner on the basis of the salary and allowances last drawn by the petitioner as a Judge of the High Court.

(2.) On 13-1-1989, the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice) issued a circular to all concerned conveying the decision of the Government of India to accept the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India that salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court be revised from 1-1-1986, the date from which the salaries of the Central Government employees were revised, instead of 1-4-1986 as per the Fifty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The circular itself states that the President was pleased to order that all Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court of India be paid an ad hoc amount in lieu of the arrears, presuming that the increase in the salaries of Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India was w.e.f. 1-1-1986 instead of 1-4-1986. As the petitioner had retired on 20-1-1986 he claimed the benefit under the aforesaid decision of the Government of India pursuant to which the President had issued the order. According to the petitioner if, the date of revision of the salary was to be shifted backwards from 1-4-1986 to 1-1-1986, by a legal fiction it will have to be deemed that between 1-1-1986 to 20-1-1986 the petitioner draw salary at the rate of Rs. 8.000/- per month and would be entitled to all the terminal benefits on that basis as also the difference in salary for the period between 1-1-1986 to 19-1-1986.

(3.) The petitioner accordingly wrote to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice), New Delhi (Annexure P/4 to the petition) as also to the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior on 22/12/1990 (Annexure P/5 to the petition) claiming the aforesaid benefits. However, the Government of India and the Accountant General did not agree. On 11-6-1991 the Ministry of Law and Justice of the Government of India (Annexure P/7 to the petition) wrote to the petitioner that ad hoc payments allowed from 1-1-1986 to 31-3-1986 did not qualify for computing pensionary benefits. By letter dated 10-10-1991 (Annexure P/6 to the petition) the Office of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior wrote to the Treasury Officer, Indore authorising the Treasury Officer to make payment for the difference in salary alone for the period between 1-1-1986 to 19-1-1986, Rs. 990/- to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed this petition in response to which the same stand was repeated by the Government of India in it's return.