Surendra Narain Dwivedi, J. - (1.) I have read the judgments of my brothers G. C. Mathur and Gangeshwar Prasad, and I entirely agree with them that these petitions should be dismissed. As the matter is obviously of importance, I have thought it proper to deal with certain aspects in my own way.
(2.) The Constitutional History before January 26, 1950 is not relevant. It is not necessary to refer to it. By virtue of Article 376(1) all pre -Constitution Judges became Judges under the Constitution. Their salaries, allowances, and rights in respect of leave of absence and pension are determined not by any pre -Constitution law of its own force but under Article 221 of the Constitution. So In respect of these matters there is no difference between pre -Constitution Judges and post -Constitution Judges. Both of them derive rights from one common source -Article 221.
(3.) Article 221(1) settles the salary of the Judges, Article 221(2) deals with their allowances, and rights in respect of leave of absence and pension. Our immediate concern is with Article 221(2). It reads: "(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule. Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.";