1988 (5) TMI 370 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to death-cum-retirement gratuity for judges retired before October 1, 1974.
2. Validity of Para III of the Government of India letter dated October 19, 1984.
3. Payment of ad hoc relief to certain petitioners.
4. Payment of the difference in pension to petitioners 8 and 9.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity:
The petitioners, retired judges of the Allahabad High Court, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to compute and determine the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to them. The petitioners argued that they are entitled to this gratuity under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, as amended by the 1961 and 1976 Amendment Acts, and the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. The court noted that Rule 2 of the Judges Rules 1956 applies the rules for Indian Administrative Service officers to High Court judges where no express provision exists. Since the 1958 Rules provided for gratuity on retirement from October 29, 1951, and there was no express provision for judges in the Principal Act, the petitioners are entitled to gratuity. The court rejected the Union of India's argument that the Supreme Court had already adjudicated this matter, clarifying that the Supreme Court's decision only related to pension, not gratuity.

2. Validity of Para III of the Government of India Letter:
The petitioners challenged Para III of the letter dated October 19, 1984, which sought to withdraw ad hoc relief granted to judges who retired before October 1, 1974. The court found that the ad hoc relief was granted under Rule 17(2) of the 1958 Rules to meet the rise in the cost of living, and it was not part of the pension. The court held that the withdrawal of this relief was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court quashed Para III of the letter, directing that the ad hoc relief should be paid to the petitioners and should not be adjusted or recovered from their pension.

3. Payment of Ad Hoc Relief:
The court found that the ad hoc relief was granted to meet the rise in the cost of living and was not part of the pension. It noted that some petitioners were still receiving this relief while others were not, which was discriminatory. The court directed the respondents to pay ad hoc relief to petitioners 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 from January 1, 1973, along with interest at 12% per annum and to continue paying it regularly in the future.

4. Payment of Difference in Pension:
Petitioners 8 and 9, who served as judges for less than seven years, argued that they were entitled to a minimum pension. The court referred to its previous judgment in Deoki Nandan Agarwala v. Union of India, where it held that the words "not less than seven years" in the Principal Act should be read as "more than four years" to uphold the validity of the provisions. The court directed the respondents to pay the difference in pension to petitioners 8 and 9 within two months from the date of the order.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, issuing a writ of mandamus to compute and pay the retirement gratuity along with interest, quashing the impugned letter's Para III, and directing the payment of ad hoc relief and the difference in pension. The court also substituted Smt. Nirmala Verma as the legal heir of petitioner 2, who had passed away, and granted her the relief accordingly. The petitioners were awarded costs.