ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSON. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2016-7-99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 14,2016

All India Judges Asson. Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) I.A. NO.339 and 336 These applications, in our considered opinion, are practically superfluous, inasmuch the very grievance expressed in these applications was already addressed, considered and dealt with in IA No.5 of 2009 in I.A. No.244 in WP(c) No.1022/1989 in the order dated 8.10.2012. In the said application, the prayer of the applicant was as under: - "(i) the existing pensions of all past pensioners who retired after 1.1.1996 and the pensioners whose pensions were consolidated as per Karnataka model shall be raised by 3.07 times on par with the other pensioners subject to minimum of 50% of the revised pay scale of pay of their respective post; (ii) and in the alternative, consolidation of the existing pensions of the above section of pensioners as per the methodology adopted by the Central Government in pursuance of recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission in para 4.1 of the O.M.F. No.38/37/08 P and PW(A) Government of India dated 1.9.2008."
(2.) While considering the prayer in the said application, the following order came to be issued: - "IA No.5 of 2009 in I.A. No.244 in WP(c) No.1022/1989 The applicants in this IA are judicial officers who retired after January 01, 1996, but prior to January 2006. They are aggrieved by the recommendation of Justice Padmanabhan Committee, as contained in paragraph 31 of its report. Paragraph 31 of the recommendations of the Committee, insofar as it is relevant, is as under: - "Pare 31: The recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission with respect to past pensioners are given in paragraph 23.18 which are as under: 1) The revised pension of the retired judicial officers should be 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time. Xx xx xx "Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate appearing for the applicants, pointed out that the Padmanabhan Committee, apparently due to oversight, fixed the revised pension of the concerned judicial officers at 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time. Consequently, as a result of the revision, the concerned judicial officers are getting as pension an amount which is lower than what they earlier received before revision. The grievance of the applicants appears to be justified and it is significant to note that both the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, in their respective responses, have supported the case of the applicants. Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned amicus curiae, also submitted that there was evidently some error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee. We accordingly, accept the prayer of the applicants and allow this IA in terms of prayer clause (i) of the application. I.A. No.5 stands disposed of."
(3.) After noting the above said order already passed by this Court on 8.10.2012 and also a G.O. issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. No.86 dated 19.7.2013 complying with the directions contained in the order dated 8.10.2012, we issued notice to all the State Governments as well as the High Courts in our order dated 28.4.2016 and called for their response. Only three states have responded by filing reply affidavit, namely, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. While on behalf of State of Orissa, time of two weeks was sought for to file the Status Report, the State of Tamil Nadu after referring to the manner in which the pension is being dispensed to the retirees prior to 1.1.2006 ultimately submitted that the State will abide by the orders/directions to be issued by this Court. So far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, a peculiar stand is being taken to the effect that in the State of Himachal Pradesh a different pattern of pension is being adopted with reference to other State Government employees, which is being applied to Judicial Officers as well. Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh drew our attention to the said stand taken in the reply filed before us and sought for affirmation of the said position being followed by the State of Himachal Pradesh.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.