- (1.) B. D. Agrawal, J. Chapter III of High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (Act No. 28 of 1954) provided for Payment of pension to High Court Judges. Section 14 of Chapter III of the aforesaid Act stated that every Judge shall, on his re- tirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part I of the First Schedule.
(2.) PARLIAMENT amended this Act by High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act of 1976. The Amending Act came into force on March 18, 1976. The Amending Act was given some retrospectivity; Section 1 (2) there of provided that the Amending Act shall be deemed to have come into force on October 1, 1974. Inter alia, the Amending Act of 1976 amended the First Schedule of the parent Act. The amended Schedule liberalised the pension admissible to Judges and Chief Justices of High Courts. The following table shows the enhancement in pension : Prior to Amendment After the Amendment Paras. 2 to 5 Chief Justicejudge Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 16,0000/- Rs. 28,000/- Rs. 22,400/- Para. 8 Chief Justice Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 28,000/- Para. 9 Judge Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 8,400/- Para 10 of the First Schedule introduced by the Amending Act of 1976 stated that the pension at enhanced rates shall be payable to such Judges only who have retired on or after the 1st Oct. , 1974. Several Judges, including many Chief Justices, who had retired prior to 1st Oct. , 1974, made representations to the Government of India for computation of pension payable to them in accordance with the pro visions of the Amended Act. The Government of India, however did not accede to their request. It took the view that the Judges, including the Chief Justices, who had retired prior to 1st Oct. , 1974, were not entitled to the benefit of the enhanced pension provided for by the Amending Act of 1976. Aggrieved, same of the Judges, including Chief Justices, have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) FOR the petitioners it was urged that there is no rational basis for discrimination in the matter of according pensionary benefits between Judges of the High court who retired before Oct. 1, 1974, and those retiring subsequent to this date. The criteria upon which pension is awarded remains uniform, it is submitted, irrespective of whether the Judge retired prior to Oct. 1, 1974, or he retries on or after this date. The Judges constitute a class for that purpose; the date specified to constitute the demarcating line for giving benefit of liberalised pension is arbitrary having no nexus to the object behind the statutory provision. The discrimination, according to learned counsel's submission, infringes Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition was filed upon these grounds before this Court on May 8, 1979. We are relieved of the burden considerably in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court dated Dec. 17, 1982 in the case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130) upon which the petitioner's learned counsel chiefly relies for his support. In that case the petitioner No. 1 had been a civil servant and the petitioner No. 2 was a member of the service personnel of the Armed Forces. The third petitioner was a society sponsering the cause of the pensioners under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued O. M. dated May 2, 1979 whereby the formula for computation of pension was liberalised, but made it applicable to Government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retire from service on or after that date. By the memorandum of the Ministry of Defence dated Sept. 28, 1979, the liberalised pension formula introduced for the Government servants governed by the 1972 Rules was extended to the Armed Forces personnel with a condition that the new rules of pension would be effective from April 1, 1979 to those service officers only who became ineffective on or after that date. The petitioner contended that the differential treatment for those retiring prior to a certain date and those retiring subsequently, the choice of the date being wholly arbitrary, would be according differential treatment to pensioners who form a class irrespective of the date of retirement and, therefore, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also contended that classifications based on fortuitious circumstance of retirement before or subsequent to a date, fixing of which is not shown to be related to any rational principle, would be equally violative of Article 14. The enquiry was limited as in the present to non-contributory superannuation or retirement pension paid by Government to its erstwhile employee.;