http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: M.L. JAIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/01/1991

BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1991 AIR  928            1991 SCR  (1)  98  1991 SCC  (1) 644        JT 1991 (5)   133  1991 SCALE  (1)64

ACT:      The  High  Court Judges (Conditions  of  service)  Act, 1954--First   Schedule  Part  III  Para   2(b)--Ceiling   on additional pension of Judges--Held ultra vires.

HEADNOTE:      Petitioner was a member  of the state Judicial  Service and  was elevated as a Judge of the High Court on  1.7.1975, and  was  later transferred to another High  Court  where  he retire  on  21.7.1984.  A dispute relating  to  pension  was disposed  of  by  this  Court  on  9.4.1985   fixing  it  at Rs.21,500  per  annum.   Meanwhile, the  High  Court  Judges (Conditions  of  Services) Act,1954 was  amended by  Central Acts  38/86  and  20/88,   and he  applied  under  the  said Amending  Acts  asking for benefits  there-under,  and  this Court  refixed  the  petitioner’s pension at  Rs.41,600  per annum  w.e.f  1.1.1986 and at Rs. 46,100  per  annum  w.e.f. 1.11.1986.      In   an    interlocutory   petition    the   petitioner challenged the ceiling  on additional pension   appearing in clause (h) of paragraph 2 of  Part III of the First Schedule to the  High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act 1954.      Allowing the petition, this Court,      HELD:  1.  There  was no justification  to introduce  a further  ceiling of Rs.8,000 per annum irrespective  of  the years   of   completed    service  rendered  and   allow   a discrimination  operate.   Once  the proviso  has  a  limit which meets the   purpose there is no basis for the  further limit of Rs 8,000. [101A}      2.  The  ceiling of  Rs. 8,000 is not necessary  to  be imposed and if that is applied, a situation  giving rise  to the  application  of  Article 14 of  the  Constitution  does arise. [101E]      3.  Fixing   the pension at Rs. 48,000 per  annum  held that the ceiling in paragraph 2(b) of  Part III of the First Schedule   is   unsustainable  under  Article  14   of   the Constitution and would not be operative. [101F]

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Interlocutory Application No.  1 of 1989.                              IN      W.P. No.   16093 of  1984 etc.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      S.M.  Jain, S.K. Jain,  Ms.  Pratibha Jain and  Pradeep Agarwal for the petitioner.      Arun  Jaitly,  Additional  Solicitor  General,  Kailash Vasdev and Ms. A. Subhashini  for the Respondent.      The  following order of the  Court was delivered:      Petitioner  was   a member of the   Rajasthan  Judicial Service  and was elevated as a Judge of the  Rajasthan  High Court on July 1, 1975.  He was transferred to the Delhi High Court  from  where he retired on July 21, 1984.   A  dispute relating to his pension became the subject-matter of a  writ petition before this  Court and was disposed  of on April 9, 1985 (1985 2 SCC 355).  This Court fixed his pension at  Rs. 21,500 per annum.      In  the  meantime, certain changes in the  High   Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act,1954, were brought about, firstly,  by  Central Act 38/86 and again  by   Central  Act 20/88.    Petitioner  applied  to  this  Court  in     Civil Miscellaneous  Petition  No. 18044/88  asking  for  benefits under  the  Amending Act.  This Court by   its  decision  on August 18, 1988, refixed petitioner’s pension at Rs.  41,600 per   annum with effect from January 1,  1986,  and  at  Rs. 46,100 per annum with effect from   November 1,1986, keeping the  two  amendments referred to above in view (1988  4  SCC 121).  In paragraph 19 of this Court’s order, it was stated:           "We refrain  from expressing any opinion as to the          effect  of lifting of the ceiling on   the  special          additional  pension at Rs. 8,000 per  annum  placed          by  clause (b) of paragraph  2 of Part III  of  the          First Schedule.  The question really does not arise          for  our  consideration at the moment and  is  left          open."                                                        100      The   petitioner  has   now  applied  to   this   Court challenging  the  ceiling on  additional  pension  appearing in  clause  (b)  of  paragraph 2 of Part III  of  the  first Schedule  to the High Court Judges (Conditions  of  Service) Act  of  1954.   The First Schedule Deals  with  pension  of Judges.   Judges in   High Court are  recruited  from  three sources:      (a) from  the Bar;      (b)   Members  belonging  to  the  former   Indian Civil Service;  and      (c) Officers of the State Judicial Service. In  this case we are concerned with Part III  as  petitioner had  been   elevated   as a Judge of  High  Court  from  the Rajasthan  State  Judicial Service.  In respect of  such   a Judge the pension  payable  is prescribed to be:           "(a)  the pension to which he is  entitled   under          the  ordinary  rules of his service if he  had  not          been  appointed  a Judge, his  service as  a  Judge          being treated as service therein   for the  purpose          of calculating that pension; and           (b) a special additional pension or Rs.1,600   per          annum in respect of each completed year of  service          for pension,but in no case such additional  pension          together  with the additional  or special  pension,          if any, to which he is  entitled under the ordinary          rule of his service exceed Rs.8,000 per annum.           Provided   that  the  pension  under  clause   (a)          and  additional pension  under clause (b)  together

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

        shall  in  no case exceed Rs.54,000  per  annum  in          the  case  of a Chief Justice and Rs.  48,000  per          annum in case of any other Judge."  Since  this Court had  fixed the pension at Rs. 46,100  and petitioner’s  claim    for    being put at  par  with  other Judges  by fixing his pension at Rs.   48,000 per annum  had not  been  accepted, petitioner  has approached  this  Court challenging  the  ceiling of Rs. 8,000.   According  to  the petitioner, he had put in nine years of completed service as a  Judge   and on  the  basis of the provision  for  special additional  pension   of Rs. 1,600 per annum in  respect  of each completed year  of service for pension he was  entitled to  Rs.14,400 but the limit in the   proviso would have  the effect  of  fixing ceiling at Rs.  48,000 per  annum.  There was no justification  to introduce a further ceiling of  Rs.  8,000 per  annum irrespective of the years of  completed  service rendered  and allow a discrimination to operate.   Once  the proviso  has  a limit which meets the purpose  there  is  no basis  for  the further limit of Rs. 8,000 as  contained  in paragraph (2) above.      The  counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the  Ministry of Law and Justice sought to justify the limit by  referring to  cases  of Central Civil Service  Officers   retiring  as Secretaries  to Government where full credit was not   being given for the entire period of service rendered and aceiling was fixed.  Such a  ceiling actually is fixed in respect  of all  the three situations  covered by   the First  Schedule. A Member of the Bar with 14 years of  completed service  out of  which six years are served as a Chief Justice  or  as  a Judge of the Supreme Court gets the maximum pension  of  Rs. 54,000 and in  the event of his retirement without  becoming Chief Justice or  a Judge of the Supreme Court, his  pension entitlement  is   Rs.  48,000 per  annum.   Similar  is  the provision    relating  to the members of  the  Indian  Civil Service  who  were earlier elevated as Judges.   It  is  the contention  of the petitioner that once a ceiling limit  was fixed  as contained  in the proviso of the Third Part, there was no further justification for the Paragraph 2(b) ceiling. We  find  full force in the submission.  The  reasons  which weighed  with  this  Court  on  the  earlier  occasion   for enhancing  the  petitioner’s  pension  fully  apply  to  the present  aspect.  The ceiling of Rs. 8,000,   therefore,  is not  necessary  to  be imposed and if  that  is  applied,  a situation giving rise to the application of Art.  14 of  the Constitution  does   arise.  In fact, the  presence  of  the proviso  clearly  brings out the intention that no  ******** sought  to  be  made  between  Judges  recruited  from   the different sources for the matter of the ceiling on  pension. We,  therefore,  modify  the  order  of  this  Court  fixing petitioner’s  pension at Rs. 46,100 and require his  pension to  be  fixed at Rs. 48,000 per annum by  holding  that  the ceiling in paragraph 2(b) of Part III of the First  Schedule is unsustainable under Art. 14 of the Constitution and would not be operative.  We direct that petitioner’s pension  from November 1, 1986, shall be fixed at Rs. 48,000 a year.      We  would  make  it clear that as  we  have  held  that paragraph 2(b) is ultra-vires, it will follow that all cases to which the present situation applied should be revised  by the  Union  of India without  requiring  representations  or applications from the retired Judges concerned.      There would be no order as to costs. V.P.R.                                  Petition allowed.                                         102

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4