G K SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the Rajasthan Judicial Service on 8. 9. 1956. He was promoted as District & Sessions Judge on May 7,1973. He was then elevated as Judge of the Rajasthan High Court w. e. f. 4. 4. 1983. Before elevation, the petitioner was holding the office of the Law Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and from that post, he had retired on March 31, 1983 on attaining the age of superannuation and his elevation as Judge of the Rajasthan High Court was after the said retirement. THE petitioner retired as Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on February 6, 1990. On his retirement as Law Secretary, Government of Rajasthan the petitioner was granted gratuity amounting to Rs. 32,000/ -. This was drawn by the petitioner on April 17, 1983. A pension payment order was also issued in favour of the petitioner, but he did not draw the pension in terms of the aforesaid pension payment order. Instead, he had applied for commutation of one third of pension. This commutation was sanctioned and the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 45, 634. 30 on July 8, 1983. THE Registrar, Rajasthan High Court wrote a letter dated 29. 08. 1983 to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice seeking clarification in the matter of recovery of commutted pension and also as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to get salary after deduction of the pension and what would be its impact on pension at the time of retirement as Judge of the High Court. After exchange of correspondence between the ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, the Director, Pension Rajasthan, Jaipur, and the Secretary Law Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, the Government of India vide its letter dated February 15, 1985 clarified that the petitioner's salary will be fixed after deducting from his salary the amount of pension and pension equivalent to gratuity. THE Director, Pension then wrote a letter dated April 23, 1983 to the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court indicating that the gross amount of pension payable to the petitioner would come to Rs. 1000/- and the amount of death cum retirement gratuity would come to Rs. 241. 70 per month. THE salary of the petitioner would be fixed after deducting the amount of Rs. 1241. 70. In pursuance of the subsequent order passed by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court the petitioner's pay was fixed after deducting the aforesaid amount. However, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court considered the case of the petitioner and expressed opinion that fixation of pay of a Judge of the High Court was not within the jurisdiction of the State Government or even the High Court itself and, therefore, he directed that the Treasury Officer, State Secretariat, Jaipur shall not deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner. A lot of correspondence was again exchanged between the various functionaries and ultimately the petitioner on his own accord asked the Director, Pension, Rajasthan to advise him as to under what head the amount should be deposited by him. After receipt of reply, the petitioner deposited the amount of commutted pension in instalments between 4. 5. 1988 to 2. 9. 1988. THE gratuity amount was also deposited in instalments between 4. 10. 88 to 24. 7. 89. THE Pension Department pointed out that the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 625/-and the same was deposited on September 21, 1989.

(2.) AFTER retirement of the petitioner as Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, the Central Government sanctioned a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as gratuity and Rs. 2,19,600/- as commutation of pension. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 47,980. 30 has been deducted by the State Government by way of interest for the period for which the amount of gratuity and commutted pension remained with the petitioner. The Director, Pension Rajasthan, Jaipur referred the matter to the Central Government for sanctioning the gratuity amount of Rs. one lakh. But the Government sanctioned only Rs. 75,000/-vide order dated 9. 1. 1990. This was apparently done under Rule 257 A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

(3.) IN the additional pleas, the respondent No. 1 has asserted that the Rajasthan High Court has not been impleaded as a party, although it is a necessary party.