JUSTICE S S DEWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A clear mandate of the Rule has been ignored. The petitioner, a former Chief Justice of this Court has been forced to approach this Court. He claims that the action of the Union of India and the State of Punjab is not computing his pension in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Superior Judicial Service (First Amendment) Rules, 1990, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) After graduating in Law, the petitioner was enrolled as a Pleader on March 1, 1954. He was enrolled as an Advocate on January 27, 1959. While practising at the Bar he was selected and appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge on November 29, 1968. On December 14, 1977, the petitioner was elevated to the office of a Judge of this Court. He became its Chief Justice on October 6, 1989. He retired as such on December 31, 1989.

(3.) It has been averred that the petitioner had elected for the computation of his pension under Part III of the Ist Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the provisions contained in Part III, the pension of a Judge has to be determined in accordance with the rules of his Service. These rules are the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The provision regarding pension is contained in rule 16. This rule was amended by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated February 22, 1990. By this amendment, it was provided that while calculating the qualifying service for superannuation, pension and other retirement benefits, "the actual period of practice at the Bar not exceeding ten years shall be added to this service...". The petitioner claims that being a direct recruit to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service, he was entitled to add the actual period of practice at the Bar not exceeding ten years to his service qualifying for superannuation pension and other retirement benefits. The High Court had duly written to the Accountant General on June 5, 1990 (Annexure P.2) to compute the petitioner's pension in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 as amended vide notification dated February 22, 1990. The Accountant General had in turn sought clarification from the State Government. The State Government vide its letter of February 25, 1991 took the view that the notification "dated February 22, 1990 shall have prospective effect i.e. with effect from the date of publication." The benefit of the amended provision having not been given to the petitioner, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It has been inter alia prayed that the respondents be directed to "give benefit of the amended Rule 16 as substituted by Annexure P.1 and to compute the pension of the petitioner in accordance therewith."