SAVITA DEVI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DENIED the benefit of family pension and of the interest on the arrears of pension, amount of commutation, etc. a retired Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, had challenged the Judgment dated 13-12-2001 passed by Learned Single Judge, whereby the Learned Single Judge had partly disallowed the writ petition filed by him. During the pendency of this appeal, Mr. Justice Sharma expired. Consequently, his wife-- Mrs. Savita Devi Sharma-was brought on record as his legal representative. (For the sake of clarity, while Mr. Justice Sharma shall be referred to as 'the Petitioner', his wife, Smt. Sharma shall be referred to as 'the appellant', for short)

(2.) IN a nutshell the facts of the case are that on 30-9-1993, the petitioner had retired as a Judge of this court. After his retirement, on 6-7-1994, he was appointed as the Lokayukta for a period of five years under the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1973 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act of 1973', for short ). Subsequently, the petitioner retired from the said post on 6-7-1999. Three months prior to his retirement, the petitioner's pension papers were submitted to the Government of Personnel (Group A III), Government of Rajasthan. A claim for pension @ Rs. 14630/- for every completed year of service as Lokayukta for five years, aggregating to Rs. 73,150/- p. a. was made. A claim for re-computation of amount of gratuity on the basis of pay and dearness allowance payable to the petitioner treating the service of the Lokayukta as separate for the purpose of calculating the amount of gratuity as also the right to the family pension was also made. Vide order dated 6- 12-1999, the Government directed that the petitioner be paid Rs. 34, 864/- p. a. as pension w. e. f. 7-7-1999, in addition to the pension as retired Judge of this High Court. Thereby the Government had clubbed the services rendered by the petitioner both as a Judge of this Court and as a Lokayukta for the purpose of calculation of pension. The petitioner challenged the action of the Government by filing a writ petition before this court. Vide judgment dated 13-12-2001, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition. The learned Single Judge directed the State to pay the pension to the petitioner for the post of Lokayukta treating the petitioner's service as Lodkayukta independent from that of a High Court Judge, and not to place the ceiling limit on his pension as prescribed under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 ('the Act of 1954', for short ). The learned Judge further directed that the petitioner shall be paid gratuity calculating the same on his pay as defined in FR 9 (21) (a) (i) plus dearness allowance admissible on the date of his retirement. However, with regard to the petitioner's claim for family pension, the learned Single Judge left the question open. The learned Judge also did not direct the payment of any interest on the arrears of pension, amount of commutation etc. Hence, this appeal before this us.

(3.) THE government is under a legal obligation to pay the pension and the commutation of leave as soon as it becomes due to a person. Although the petitioner had submitted his pension papers three months prior to his retirement from the post of Lokayukta, the respondents had maintained a studied silence over the entire issue. THE omission on the part of the respondents is most arbitrary, unfair and unjust. If a Lokayukta and a former judge of this court has to wait for his pension, one wonders about the plight of the ordinary citizen who have to receive his pension. THE government should be vigilant and should ensure that the pension is paid to a person as soon as it becomes due. THE omission on the part of the government is flooding this court with pension cases. This tide has to be stemmed. Since the petitioner had been denied his due pension and his commutation of leave, we direct the government to pay an interest of 12% to the appellant on the pension paid to the petitioner, the commutation of leave from the date the pension and the commutation were due till the date of realization.