1995 (11) TMI 439 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal
2. Determination of pension under Part I or Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954

Analysis:
1. The first issue raised in the appeal was regarding the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to entertain the application. However, the Supreme Court decided to focus on the determination of the pension to prevent further confusion. The respondent, a retired High Court Judge appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal, filed a case in CAT seeking pension fixation under Part I of the Act. The Union contended that the pension should be determined under Part III of the First Schedule. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's contentions, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. The Supreme Court delved into the provisions of Rule 15A of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985. This rule stated that the conditions of service for the Vice-Chairman should be the same as those for a serving Judge of a High Court under the Act. The Act stipulates that a serving Judge shall receive a pension under Part I unless holding another pensionable post, in which case Part III applies. The key question was whether the respondent, a retired High Court Judge drawing pension, held a pensionable post under the Union/State when retiring as Vice-Chairman. The determination hinged on whether a High Court Judge could be considered a government servant, affecting the applicability of Part I or Part III of the First Schedule.

3. The Supreme Court extensively analyzed the constitutional provisions establishing the independence of the judiciary from the executive. It highlighted that High Court Judges do not hold a master-servant relationship with the government, as they are holders of constitutional offices. The judges are expected to discharge their duties independently and impartially, without being subordinate to the executive. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the need to insulate the judiciary from external influences. Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that the relationship between the government and High Court Judges is not that of master and servant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirming the CAT's decision on pension fixation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the CAT's decision, ruling that the respondent, as a retired High Court Judge appointed as Vice-Chairman, was entitled to pension fixation under Part I of the First Schedule to the Act. The judgment emphasized the independence of the judiciary and the unique constitutional position of High Court Judges, ultimately determining the pension entitlement based on the specific circumstances of the case.