Family Pension Admissible To Chairperson Of State Law Commission Is Equally Admissible To High Court Chief Justice: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that the family pension admissible to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission is equally admissible to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The Court observed thus in a writ petition preferred by Justice Vinod Chandra Misra, Former High Court Judge against the order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) Government.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh said, “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. It 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-respondent to contend that for the purpose of examination of entitlement to pension we 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.”
Senior Advocate V.K. Singh and Advocate Nand Lal represented the petitioner while Additional Chief Standing Counsel (Addl. CSC) Kritika Singh represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner demitted office as a Judge of the Allahabad High Court in 2008 and was appointed as Chairman of State U.P. Law Commission. At that time, the Act and the Rules were not framed. However, the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010 and the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011 were enforced thereafter. In 2012, after serving for almost five years as Chairman of the U.P. State Law Commission, the petitioner demitted office. At that stage, the petitioner claimed pension entitlement in terms of the Act and the Rules.
However, the State Government rejected the petitioner’s claim and that led to filing of the writ petition. Upon certain directions being issued in that writ petition, first, pension was sanctioned in 2015 and the arrears were computed and paid thereafter. Since then, the petitioner was paid pension equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court and the only dispute in that regard was non-payment of interest. As to the entitlement of 'family pension' being claimed by the petitioner, that claim was declined by the State Government by the impugned order.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “… 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 as may be prescribed. The first proviso thereto itself makes clear that in fixing the salary allowances and pension payable to a Chairperson of State Law Commission regard shall be had to salary allowances pension payable to and other conditions of service of the Chief Justice of a High Court.”
The Court added that 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.
“Therefore the prescription made under the Rules necessarily adopts the entitlement, the method of computation and payment of pension admissible to a retired Chairperson of the State Law Commission- as provided to a Chief Justice of a High Court in terms of the Judges Act and the Judges Rules. As noted above, under the Judges Act and the Judges Rules 'family pension' is included in 'pension' entitlement”, it held.
The Court further emphasised that 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.
“Thus in our view, in the first place 'pension' payable to a Chairperson of a State of Law Commission necessarily includes within it the 'family pension' that may become payable to the spouse of such Chairperson, if that contingency arises. Alternatively, even if 'family pension' were not included in the term 'pension' payable to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission, that entitlement would arise by virtue of Rule 14 of the Rules read with the Judges Act and the Judges Rules”, it remarked.
The Court also noted that 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 Commision.
“… 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 petitioner has never claimed two pensions. He is only receiving the differential amount of higher pension (from the State) on the principle of equivalence with a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. Same principle would govern the payment of higher 'family pension', should that contingency arise. That statutory protection is available under Rule 4(5) of the Rules, itself”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to make the payment within three months.
Cause Title- Justice Vinod Chandra Misra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:164582-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate V.K. Singh, Nand Lal, and Prakash Chandra Shukla.
Respondents: Addl. CSC Kritika Singh
