Sunday, December 8, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

The Pension Paradox

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the “family pension” provisions outlined in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and the associated Rules shall apply to the pension awarded to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission under the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010

The landmark ruling was given by a Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, while hearing a petition filed by a retired High Court judge, Justice Vinod Chandra Misra. The petition was filed to challenge a part of the order dated November 15, 2017, passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh. However, that order itself came following an earlier direction issued by the High Court on April 15, 2015. While dealing with the representation filed, the UP government took an informed decision to sanction pension equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. That decision is based on the own understanding of the UP government of Section 4(5) of the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010 (the Act) read with Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011 (the Rules).

The state government accepted the basic contention of Justice Misra that he is entitled to be paid a pension equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. However, no interest was paid on the arrears of such pension paid under the impugned order.

Justice Misra claimed that his spouse should be entitled to claim “family pension” equivalent to that payable to a spouse of a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, should the need arise. He also sought interest on the delayed computation and payment of the entitled pension as well as a direction to the state government to make necessary provision to pay “family pension” to his spouse at the rate at which such pension may be payable to a spouse of a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, should that eventuality arise.

Justice Misra demitted office as a judge of a High Court on January 29, 2008. On January 30, 2008, he was appointed Chairman of State UP Law Commission. At that time, the Act and the Rules had not been framed. The Act was enforced in 2010 and the Rules were enforced in 2011. On September 11, 2012, after serving for almost five years as Chairman of the UP State Law Commission, Justice Misra demitted office.

Thereafter, Justice Misra then claimed the pension entitled in terms of the Act and the Rules. However, the UP government rejected his claim. That led to the filing of the writ petition. Upon certain directions issued in that writ petition, pension was sanctioned on July 27, 2015. The arrears were computed and paid thereafter. Since then, Justice Misra is being paid a pension equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. The only dispute in the case is the non-payment of interest.

Though Justice Misra demitted office as Chairman of State Law Commission on September 11, 2012, the pension claim was first approved by the state government by means of the impugned order, almost four years thereafter on May 27, 2015. Hence, Justice Misra claimed entitlement to interest on that delayed payment.

The High Court observed that it cannot be denied that there is statutory provision contained under the Act or the Rules to provide for payment of pension to a retired Chairperson of the State Law Commission. The Act and the Rules also provide for payment of pension. Whereas Justice Misra demitted office on September 11, 2012, that pension is being paid to him since the decision was taken in that regard by the state government, after more than two years, on May 27, 2015.

The High Court held that it had been computed equivalent to the pension payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. “The only dispute surviving in that regard is with respect to computation of interest. The statute was never in doubt and as the State Government has itself reached a conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to payment of higher pension equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, we find, no reason why interest may not be paid on the arrears amount of pension,” the bench said.

The bench further observed: “Payment of pension is a statutory right arising from services rendered. That right existed from before. Since there was no conduct offered by the petitioner as may have delayed the computation and payment of higher pension to which he was entitled and since there never existed any legal impediment or doubt in that payment, we find the stand of the State Government untenable insofar as interest has not been paid on arrears of correct pension computed with delay. The State must compensate for the loss of time in making the due payment.”

The bench further observed that as to the entitlement of “family pension”, though the Act and the Rules do not make a specific/direct provision for payment of “family pension’, at the same time provision of Rule 4(5) of the Rules clearly provides that the pension admissible to a Chairperson shall be equivalent to the pension admissible to the Chief Justice of a High Court under the Judges Act read with the Judges Rules. Therefore, it is not open to the state government to contend that for the purpose of examination of entitlement to pension it may look at the Judges Act and the Judges Rules, but for determining the entitlement to “family pension”, “we may not look at the Judges Act or the Judges Rules”. Once the state admits, that for the purpose of pension payable to the petitioner, the Judges Act and the Judges Rules are applicable and therefore the petitioner is entitled to higher pension equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, there is no inherent reason or logic to not read the Judges Act and the Judges Rules for the purpose of determining the entitlement to “family pension”, the bench said.

The bench further noted that the term “pension” is not defined either under the Act or the Rules. Section 4(5) only provides that allowances and pension payable to a chairperson shall be made as prescribed. The first proviso therefore itself makes clear that in fixing the salary allowances and pension payable to a Chairperson of State Law Commission, regard shall be given to salary allowances pension payable to and other conditions of service of the Chief Justice of a High Court. At the same time, the Rule 4(5) of the Rules clearly prescribes that the pension admissible to a Chairperson of a State Law Commission shall be “equivalent” to the pension which would be admissible to the Chief Justice of a High Court under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the relevant Rules including Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956.

The bench further stated that under the Judges Act and the Judges Rules “family pension” is included in “pension” entitlement. For that reason, the payment of “family pension” to the spouse of a retired Chairperson of the State Law Commission would remain included in the “pension” admissible to a retired Chairperson of the State Law Commission. The bench found that “family pension” was included in the pension payable to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission under Section 4(5) of the Act. In that event, the spouse of the petitioner may only claim “family pension” equivalent to that payable to the spouse of a Chief Justice of the High Court.

The bench noted that the state does not object to computation and payment of pension to the petitioner equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court as provided under the Act and the Rules read with the Judges Act and the Judges Rules. Thus, while the petitioner demitted office as a Judge of the High Court, he became entitled to receive and is receiving higher pension than payable to a retired Judge of a High Court by virtue of his having served as a Chairperson of the State Law Commission. “We find no reason why the spouse of the petitioner may be treated differently, with respect to the payment of family pension, should that eventuality arise,” the bench observed. 

—By Adarsh Kumar and India Legal Bureau

spot_img

News Update