9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, as amended by the Amending Acts, 1986 and 1988. In accordance with these provisions, the basic pension payable to the Appellant was fixed at Rs. 17,300/- p.a. The U.O.I. issued order O.M. dated 16.04.1987 rationalizing the pension structure of employees who retired before 1.1.1986. It is also stated in the said order that separate orders vis-'-vis the Pension of the retired High Court and Supreme Court Judges would be issued. Accordingly the Government of India in a Notification dated 18.12.1987, ordered to revise the ordinary pension admissible to High Court Judges under clause 2(a) of Part III of the 1st Schedule of the Act with effect from 1.1.1986. In G.O. Ms. 228/89/GAD dated 19.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I of the 1st Schedule of the Act in order to find out the amount of revised pension, was not correct. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Review Petition No. 299/1997 before the High Court. The High Court vide Order dated 10.11.1997 dismissed the Review Petition, inter alia, holding that the appellant had no case that the order sanctioning pension to the appellant is illegal. Hence these appeals by special leave. The two issues which arise for consideration are: (I) Whether the High Court's fixation of the pension under clause 2(a) is correct? (II) Whether the High Court was correct in not adding the figures under para 2 cls. (a) and (b) of Schedule I, Part III of the Act in order to find out the revised amount of pension and whether a ceil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate and Subordinate Service Rules. (b) The dearness pay the employee was actually in receipt of." It is the respondents' contention that the appellant was getting dearness allowance and special allowance and not dearness pay, to attract Rule 62. In fact, the respondents rely on this very Rule to justify why dearness allowance and other special allowance were not added to the last salary of Rs. 3500/- for the purposes of calculating the appellants pension. The appellant, however, contends that since the first part of the rule means "emolument which the employee was receiving immediately before his retirement" any such emolument cannot be taken away by the inclusive definition contained in clause (b) of Rule 62. The appellant's contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (b) refers to a special additional pension per annum in respect of each completed year of service to be paid to the retired High Court Judge. The notification/order dated 18.12.1987 clearly states that the "ordinary pension admissible to High Court/Supreme Court Judges under para 2(a) of Part III of the 1st Schedule to the High Court/Supreme Court Judges (Condition of Service) Act, 1954/1958 respectively may be revised with effect from 1.1.1986\005.." Thus, it is evident that what is revised under the order is ordinary pension under para 2(a) and not the special additional pension under para 2(b) and each of them have different characteristics. Therefore, the view of the Division Bench that the figures under clauses (a) and (b) of para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
