JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who has since retired as a District & Sessions Judge, is aggrieved by the order dated 'september 19, 1991 by which he was informed that he was "entitled to the total special pay of Rs. 500/- only inclusive of the special pay attached with the post of Judge, Designated Court. . . . ". He avers that this order is based on 'arithmetical absurdity' and is illegal. According to the petitioner, the post of District Judge carried the special pay of Rs. 300/- per month while a Judge, Designated Court was entitled to the special pay of Rs. 500/- per month. Consequently, the petitioner claims that he was entitled to be paid Rs. 800/- per month on account of special pay. The respondents contest this claim. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) THE petitioner is a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service since September 1, 1977. On July 25, 1990, he was appointed as a Judge of the Designated Court at Hoshiarpur. He retired on March 31, 1992. The petitioner avers that with effect from April 1, 1978, a special pay of Rs. 150/-per month had been sanctioned for the post of District & Sessions Judge in the State of Punjab. In view of the arduous nature of duties which the Presiding Officers of the designated courts are required to discharge, the Government of Punjab by its orders dated March 4, 1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-5, had allowed a special pay of Rs. 300/- per month. Vide order dated August 30, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, the State Government decided that "the existing rate of special pay, wherever already attached with the existing scale of pay of a post, shall stand doubled subject to a maximum of Rs. 500/-with effect from 1st January 1986, or the date from which special pay has been sanctioned, whichever is later. " The petitioner avers that as a result of this order, he was entitled to draw a special pay of Rs. 500/- in his capacity as Presiding Officer of the designated court and Rs. 300/- per month (double of Rs. 150/- per month) as a District & Sessions Judge. On this basis, the petitioner claims to be entitled to a total of Rs. 800/- per month by way of special pay. He avers that vide order dated September 19, 1991, he was directed to draw a total of Rs. 500/- per month as special pay as a result of which he was forced to forego the special pay of Rs. 300/- per month which he was entitled to draw in his capacity as a District & Sessions Judge. In response to his representations, he was informed by the Registrar of this Court that the matter had been clarified by the Punjab Government vide letter dated June 24, 1987. Wherein it was observed that "special Pay of Rs. 300/- per mensem granted to the Presiding Officers of the Designated Courts is inclusive of the Special Pay. . . " attached to the post of District Judge, Aggrieved by this action, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The petitioner avers that the decision is illegal and adversely affects not only his total emoluments but even the retiral benefits. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab by the Deputy Secretary (Home ). It has been inter alia averred that the State Government had sanctioned a special pay of Rs. 150/- per month for the District and Sessions Judges. Thereafter, on the abolition of special courts, they were given the charge of designated courts. Keeping in view the arduous nature of duties of the Presiding Officers of the designated courts, "the special pay was raised to Rs. 300/per month including the special pay they were already getting as District and Sessions Judges. This special pay was later doubled subject to a maximum of Rs. 500/- w. e. f. Ist January, 1986 or the date from which the special pay was sanctioned whichever is later. The argument that they are entitled for two Special pays i. e. Rs. 300/- and 500/- is highly misconceived, as the duties of District and Sessions Judges and the Presiding Officers are not being discharged at the same time. . . ". The other averments in the writ petition have been controverted. It has been averred that the action is in strict conformity with law and no benefit admissible to the petitioner has been denied.
(3.) THE petitioner has appeared in person and contended that the designated courts are constituted Under Section 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA ). The Presiding Officer of such a designated court holds an office which is distinct from that of a District and Sessions Judge. The State Government having sanctioned special pay of Rs. 300/- per month to each of the Presiding Officers in the designated courts vide order dated March 4, 1987 (Annexure P-5 with the writ petition), it was an additional benefit and did not affect the special pay granted to the District and Sessions Judges vide order dated July 3, 1978 (Annexure P-3 with the writ petition ). He submits that this action was in conformity with the provisions contained in Rules 2. 52 and 4. 22 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part 1 and that the action of the respondents in holding that the special pay granted to the Presiding Officers of the designated courts is inclusive of the special pay which was being drawn by the District and Sessions Judges, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The claim made by the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Randhir Singh, appearing for the respondents. He also produced the relevant records.;