Holding

A retired High Court Judge is entitled to pension only for the period he served as a High Court Judge before superannuation; post‑retirement posts cannot be clubbed for pension computation.

Summary

Justice P. Venugopal, a retired Madras High Court Judge, sought re‑fixation of his pension by claiming that periods he served as a Commission of Inquiry, ad hoc Judge and Commissioner of Payments (1981‑1988) should be counted as judicial service. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 permits clubbing of such post‑retirement posts for pension computation and whether an ad hoc Judge is deemed a High Court Judge for pension purposes. It held that pension under the Act is payable only for service rendered as a High Court Judge before superannuation; subsequent offices of profit, including commissions of inquiry and ad hoc appointments, cannot be clubbed. The Court overruled the earlier Allahabad High Court decision in Justice Nand Lal Ganguly and affirmed that the petition for re‑fixation of pension must be dismissed. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether periods of service as a Commission of Inquiry, ad hoc Judge or other post‑retirement offices can be counted for computing pension of a retired High Court Judge.
Whether the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 allows clubbing of such services for pension purposes.
Whether an ad hoc Judge is deemed a High Court Judge for the purpose of pension entitlement under the Act.
Whether the earlier decision in Justice Nand Lal Ganguly v. State of Uttar Pradesh is applicable.

Legislation cited

Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
Constitution of Indias. 112(3)(iii), s. 136, s. 141, s. 217, s. 221, s. 224A
High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954s. 14, s. 15, s. 16

Subjects

pensionHigh Court Judgeservice computationad hoc JudgeCommission of InquiryHigh Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) ActConstitutional lawArticle 217Article 224Aclubbing of servicespecial leave petition

Judgment

A JUSTICE P.VENUGOPAL
V.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER I, 2003

B [V.N. KHARE, CJ., ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]

High Court Judges(Salaries and Conditions of Service), Act, 1954:

S.14-Pension-High Court Judge-Appointed as Commission of
C Inquiry-After superannuation continued as Commission of Inquiry and
also worked as ad hoc Judge-Pension fixed on the basis of the period
he held office as High Court Judge-Claim for refixation ofpension upon
taking into account the period he held office as Commission of Inquiry
and ad hoc Judge-Held, pension would be payable to a Judge for the
D period during which he rendered his services as a High Court Judge, i.e.
before attaining the age of 62 years-A High Court Judge is entitled to
pension benefits only in terms of the Act and not otherwise-The Act does
not contemplate grant ofpension to a retired High Court Judge for holding
any other office of profit-Clubbing of services for the purpose of
computation of pension is not contemplated under the Act and, thus, the
E court cannot by process of interpretation of statutory or constitutional
provisions hold s<r- The pension payable to a High Court Judge would
be only for the period rendered in that capacity which would constitute
charge to the consolidatedfond of India and services rendered subsequent
thereto in terms of the order made by a State Government would not be
F charged to the consolidated fund-The question as to whether such a
person would be entitled to pension from the State concerned or not would
depend upon the statute or the terms and conditions of appointment-
Constitution of India-Articles 112(3) (iii),22I,217 and 224A.

G Justice Nand Lal Ganguly v. State ofUttar Pradesh and Ors., (Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 18496 of 1999), overruled.

Union of India v. K.B. Khare and Ors., (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 502
and V.S. Mallimath v. Union of India and Anr., [2001) 4 SCC 31, relied
Hon.
286
JUSTICE P. VENUGOPAL v. U.0.1. 287
Union of India and Ors. v. Pratibha Bonnerjea and Anr., (1995] 6 A
SCC 765; Pasupati Nath Sukut Etc. v. Nern Chandra Jain and Ors. Etc.,
(1984] 2 SCC 404 and Pradvat Kumar v. Hon 'hie ChiefJustice ofCalcutta
High Court, [1955] 2 SCR 1331, referred to.

Constitution of lndia,1950:
B
Articles 217 and 224A-High Court Judge-After superannuation
appointed as ad hoc Judge-Entitlement to pension-Held, an ad hoc
Judge, in terms of the provisions of Articles 224A is only entitled to such
allowances as the President may by order determine-A legal fiction,
however, has been created therein in terms whereof he is not to be treated C
as a Judge of the High Court except for the purpose of exercising his
jurisdiction, powers and privileges-An ad hoc Judge is appointed for
reasons specified in the notification issued by the President ofIndia in this
behalf-He does not become a part of the High Court-A person is not
entitled to any further pensionary benefits after he demits the constitutional D
office which he holds in terms of Article 217 of the Constitution.

Article 141rlwArticle136-Special leave to appeal from a judgment
of High Court not granted-Held, it would not render the decision as
binding precedent in terms of Article 141.
E
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kera/a and Anr., AIR (2000)
SC 2587, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 15450 of 2003.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.2003 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No. 11222 of 2001.

Jayant Bhushan, B. Balaji and Satya Mitra Garg the Petitioner

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G

The petitioner is a former judge of the Madras High Court. He was
appointed on 25.01.1979 and superannuated on 07.12.1981. In the
meanwhile, by a notification dated 29.07.1981, he was appointed as
Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the incidents which took place in H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Coimbatore Town on 23 .07 .1981 arising from attacks on the office
premises of two Tamil newspapers 'Dinakaran' and 'Malai Murasu'. In the
aforementioned notification dated 29.07.1981 it was stated :

"I am directed to say that the President requests Shri Justice
P. Venugopal, Judge, Madras High Court to function as the
B Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act,
I 952 in respect of the incidents that took place in Coimbatore
Town in Tamil Nadu on 23rd July, 1981.

2. The time spent by Shri Justice P. Venugopal in the
c performance of the said functions will count as "Actual Service"
within the meaning of paragraph 11 (b)(i) of Part "D" of the
Second Schedule to the Constitution of India read with section
2(1)(c)(i) of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act,
1954, Shri Justice Venugopal will not be entitled to any extra
remuneration for the above work except traveling allowances and
D daily allowances as admissible under the High Court Judges
(Travelling Allowance) Rules, 1956"

Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order dated 29.07.1981, the
Government of Tamil Nadu also issued an order on 01.08.1981 appointing
E the petitioner as a Commission oflnquirey, terms of reference whereof are
as under :

"(i) to enquire into the alleged incidents of attack on the offices
and premises of the news papers 'Dinakaran' and 'Malai
Murasu' in Coimbatore Town on 23rd July, 1981; and
F
(ii) to determine the persons who actually took part in such
alleged incidents of attack on the said offices and premises."

The petitioner despite his superannuation as a High Court Judge
G continued to occupy the post of Commission of Inquiry, wherefor the
Government of Madras (as the State was thence known) issued an order
dated 28.12.1981 stating :

"Justice P. Venugopal (Retired) who has been appointed as the
Commission of Inquiry on a full time basis will draw the total
H emoluments last drawn by him as a Judge of the High Court,
JUSTICE P. VENUGOPAL v. U.0.1. 289

minus the pension to which he is eligible, excluding the pension A
commuted, if any, for the period he functions as the Commission
of Inquiry."
(Emphasis supplied)

Yet again he was appointed by the Government of Madras as a One B
man Commission of Inquiry in relation to communal riots which took place
in the District of Kanyakumari by an order dated 22.03.1982.

He was appointed as an ad hoc Judge for a term of one year in 1982
and yet again for another term of one year from 19.08.1983. After he
demitted his office as an ad hoc Judge of the Madars High Court, he C
submitted his reports on 21.09.1985 and 30.04.1987. He was appointed as
the Commissioner of Payments under the Madras Race Club (Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1986 by an order dated 01.08.1986,
which post he held till 31.12.1988.
D
The petitioner was allowed pension as a High Court Judge for holding
office for two years ten months and fourteen days.

He in the year 200 I filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court
claiming, inter a/ia, for re-fixation of his pension upon taking into account
the purported period of services from 01.08.1981 to 31.12.1988. The said E
writ petition by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed by
the Madras High Court. This is how the petitioner is before us.

A short question which arises for consideration in this matter is as
to whether the pension of the petitioner can be refixed keeping in view the F
fact that he held different offices from 01.08.1981 to 31.12.1988.

Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India provides for appointment
of a Judge of the High Court. The age of superannuation for a Judge of
the High Court is 62 years. Constitution of India in terms of Article 224A
provides for appointment of an ad hoc Judge in the following terms : G
"224A. Appointment of retired Judges at sittings of High Courls-
Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Chief Justice of a
High Court for any State may at any time, with the previous
consent of the President, request any person who has held the H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A office of Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and
act as a Judge of the High Court for that State, and every such
person so requested shall, while so sifting and acting, be entitled
to such allowances as the President may by order determine and
have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not
otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that High Court. "
B
(Emphasis supplied)

An ad hoc Judge, thus, in terms of the aforementioned provision is
only entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine.
A legal fiction, however, has been created therein in terms whereof he is
C not to be treated as a Judge of the High Court except for the purpose of
exercising his jurisdiction, powers and privileges. An ad hoc Judge is
appointed for reasons specified in the notification issued by the President
of India in this behalf. An ad hoc Judge does not become a part of the High
Court. If an ad hoc Judge is not considered to be a Judge of the High Court
D in terms of the legal fiction created, the question of computing his pension
for the period he is appointed as an ad hoc Judge would not arise inasmuch
a person is not entitled to any further pensionary benefits after he demits
the constitutional office which he holds in terms of Article 217 of the
Constitution. The claim of the petitioner that the period during which he
E was appointed as an ad hoc Judge should also be considered for the purpose
of computing his pensionary benefits is, thus, without any substance.

The sole question which survives for consideration is as to whether
the period during which he served as Commission of Inquiry or as
Commissioner of Payments under the Madras Race Club (Acquisition and
F Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1986 can be taken into consideration for
computing the pensionary benefits. As noticed, the petitioner in terms of
the notification of the Government of Madras dated 28.2.1981 was to
receive the emoluments drawn by him as a High Court Judge minus the
pension to which he was eligible. Pension to a retired Judge is payable in
G terms of Article 221 of the Constitution oflndia. Sub-clause (iii) of clause
(30 of Article 112 of the Constitution of India provides that the pension
payable to or in respect of Judges of any High Court which exercised
jurisdiction in relation to any area included in the territory of India or which
at any time before the commencement of this Constitution exercises
H jurisdiction in relation to any area included in a Governor's Province of
JUSTICE P. VENUGOPAL v. U.0.1. 291

the Dominion of India, shall be charged to the consolidated fund of India. A
What is charged to the consolidated fund of India is envisaged in clause
(2) of Article 22 I of the Constitution of India, which in turn would mean
that pension would be payable to a Judge for the period during which he
rendered his services as a High Court Judge i.e. before attaining the age
of 62 years. B
It is at this juncture profitable to refer to Sections 14, I 5 and 16 of
the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') :

"14. Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Judge on his C
retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and
provisions in Part I of the first Schedule.

Provided that no such pension shall be payable to a Judge
unless :
D
(a) he has completed not less than twelve years of service for
pension; or

(b) he has attained the age of sixty two years, and, in the case
of a Judge holding office on the 5th day of October, 1963, E
sixty years, or

(c) his retirement is medically certified to be necessitated by ill-
health :

Provided further that if a Judge at the time of his appointment is F
in receipt of a pension other than a disability or wound pension
in respect of any previous service in the Union or a State, the
pension payable under this Act shall be in lieu of and not in
addition to, that pension.

15. Every Judge G
(i) (a) who is a member of the Indian Civil Service shall
on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with
the scale and provisions in Part II of the first schedule;

(b) who is not a member of the Indian Civil Service but H
,•

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A has held any other pensionable civil post under the
Union or a State, shall on his retirement, be paid
pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in
Part III of the first schedule;

Provided that every such Judge shall elect to receive the pension
B payable to him either under Part I or Part III of the first schedule,
and the pension payable to him shall be calculated accordingly.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (!) any
Judge to whom that sub-section applied and who is in service on
c or after the I st day of October, 1974, may if he has elected under
the proviso to that sub-section to receive the pension payable to
him under Part II or, as the case may be, part III of the first
schedule before the date on which the High Court Judges
(Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1976, receives the
assent of the President cancel such election and elect afresh to
D receive the pension payable to him under Part I of the first
Schedule and any such Judge who dies before the date of such
assent shall be deemed to have elected afresh to be governed by
the provisions of the said Part I, if the provision of that part are
more favourable in his case.
E
16. The President of India for special reasons direct that any
period not execeeding three months shall be added to the service
for pension of a Judge.

Provided that the period so added shall be disregarded in calculating
F any additional pension under Part-I or Part II or Part III of the First
Schedule."

The First Schedule appended to the said Act lays down the manner
in which the amount of pension shall be calculated in respect of a person
who has retired as a High Court Judge depending upon the source from
G which he has appointed. By reason of notification dated 01.01.1996, Rule
9 of Part I of the First Schedule, the minimum pension payable to a retired
Judge of the High Court was fixed Rs. 51,000 per annum which reads thus:

"Where a Judge to whom this part applies retires or has retired
H at any time after the 26th January, 1950, without being eligible
JUSTICE P. VENUGOPAL v. U.0.1. 293

for a pension under any other provisions of this part, then A
notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions,
a pension of Rs. 51,000 per annum shall be payable to such a
Judge.

Provided that nothing in the paragraph shall apply :-
B
(a) to an additional Judge or acting Judge; or

(b) to a Judge who at the time of his appointment is in receipt
of a pension (other than a disability or wound pension) in
respect of any previous service under the Union or a State." C
The aforementioned provision, thus, does not apply to an additional
or acting Judge. Evidently the same would not apply to the case of an
ad hoc Judge.

Rule 8 of Part I of the Schedule appended to 1954 Act provides that D
a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 per annum shall be payable to a Judge as a pension
who has completed 14 years of service including not less than six years
of service as Chief Justice of one or more High Courts. Subject to the
aforementioned provision, the rate of pension which is payable to others
is as under :-
E
"Subject to the other provisions of this part, the pension payable
to a Judge to whom this part applies and who has completed not
less than seven years of service for pension shall be :

(a) for service as Chief Justice in any High Court Rs. 14,630 F
per annum for each completed year of service;

(b) for service as any other Judge in any High Court Rs. 11, 150
per annum for each completed year of service, provided that
the pension shall in no case exceed Rs. 1,80,000 per annum G
in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs. 1,56,000 per annum
in the case of any other Judge."

The provisions of law mentioned hereinbefore are absolutely clear
and unambiguous. A High Court Judge is entitled to pensionary benefits
only in terms of the said Act and not otherwise. The said Act is a self H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A contained Code. It does not contemplate grant of pension to a retired High
Court Judge for holding an)' other office of profit. Clubbing of services
for the purpose of computation of pension is not contemplated under the
said Act and, thus, the court cannot by process of interpretation of statutory
or constitutional provisions hold so.
B Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, however, would submit that in Justice Nand Lal Ganguly
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18496
of 1999), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court following the
decision of this Court in Union of India and Other v. Pratibha Bonnerjea
C and Another, [1995] 6 SCC 765 held that when a High Court Judge is
appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the
period during which such service is rendered, is to be tagged during which
he held the office of a High Court Judge.

Pratibha Bonnerjea (supra) was decided by a two-Judge Bench of this
D
Court. In that case interpretation of Rule 15-A of the Central Administrative
Tribunal (Salari.:s and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman,
Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 fell for consideration of this
Court which is in the following terms :

E "15-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 4 to 15 of
the said Rules, the conditions of service and other perquisites
available to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central
Administrative Tribunal shall be the same as admissible to a
serving Judge of a High Court as contained in the High Court
F Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and High Court Judges
(Travelling Allowances) Rules, 1956''.

The question which was posed for consideration therein was as to
whether a High Court Judge who was enjoying a pension as such can be
said to be a person holding a pensionable post under the Union or a State
G at the time when one retires from the post of Vice-Chairman of the Central
Administrative Tribunal. It was observed :

" .... .If she was holding a pensionable post under the Union/State,
there can be no doubt that she would not be entitled to pension
H under Part I but would be entitled to pension under Part III of the
JUSTICE P. VENUGOPAL v. U.0.1. 295

First Schedule. That gives rise to the question whether a High A
Court Judge who is drawing pension can be said to be a person
holding a pensionable post under the Union/State. If the answer
is in the affirmative the first respondent would be entitled to
pension under Part III, but if the answer is in the negative, she
would be entitled to pension under Part 1 of the First Schedule to B
the Act. That is the moot question for consideration under Rule
15-A, extracted earlier. The pension has to be the same as
admissible to "a serving Judge of a High Court under the Act and
the Rules made thereunder"

3. Does a Judge of the High Court hold a post under the Union C
or a State? If yes, the first respondent having retired as a Judge
of the High Court and having been drawing pension at all material
times would not be entitled to fixation of pension under Part I of
the First Schedule. If, however, it is found that a High Court Judge
does not hold a post under the Union or a State, Part I would D
squarely be attracted as he or she would be outside the scope of
Part III. Therefore, what we have to determine is whether the first
respondent who was admittedly a pensioner as a retired High
Court Judge could be said to be a person holding a pensionable
post under the Union or a State."
E
Ahmadi, CJ, speaking for the Bench in the aforementioned situation
opined that as, a Judge of the High Court is not a Government servant but
holder of a constitutional post and, thus, Part III of the First Schedule of
1954 Act would not be applicable. Having regard to the constitutional
scheme, it was held in Pratibha Bonnerjea 's (supra) that Part I of the F
Schedule appended to 1954 Act would be applicable and not Part III
thereof. Although the said case was decided on its own facts, the attention
of the court was not drawn to an earlier decision of this Court in Union
of India v. K.B. Khare and Others, (1994] Supp. 3 SCC 502, wherein the
issue in question directly arose for consideration. Upon taking into G
consideration the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the
rules framed under Section 35(2)(c) thereof and in particular Rules 8 and
16, it was held :

"17. In our considered view, the High Court has gone wrong in
considering the service in CAT as re-employment in connection H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A with the affairs of the Union. On the contrary, an independent
judicial service, the appointment in the CAT is on tenure basis.
The pension relating to such post is clearly governed by Rule 8
of the Rules quoted above and at the risk of repetition, we may
state it exhaustive in nature. If that be so, there is no scope for
resort to Rule 16 at all. If the first respondent had to resign from
B
Judicial Service because of the statutory requirement under Rule
5 of the Rules (quoted above), we are unable to see as to how both
the services namely senior District Judge in the State Judicial
Service and a Member in the CAT could be clubbed. Such a
clubbing is not contemplated at all. From this point of view, we
c find it difficult to accept the reasoning of the High Court that the
matter of option to club the two services for pension is a subject
on which the Rules are silent and the residuary provision in Rule
16 of the Rules intends to fill the gap by supplementing the Rules
by rules applicable to the Secretary to the Government of India.
D
18. Merely because while the first respondent was a Member of
the State Judicial Service, he was governed by DCRB Rules of
1958, that cannot be pressed into service in view of the specific
Rule 8 of the Rules. Consequently, the provisions relating to
E pensioners retired on invalid pension is not applicable. The Rules
being unambiguous cannot be construed to confer better pensionary
benefits. It is no agrument to hold that had the first respondent
continued in the State Judicial Service, he would have got a higher
pension. There is no escape from Rule 8 of the Rules with regard
to the grant of pension of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or the
F Members of the Tribunal. That being so, the question of liberally
construing pension rules does not arise. On the same reasoning,
the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara case is not applicable."

We may further notice that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
G Pasupati Nath Sukur etc. v. Nem Chandra Jain and Others etc., [1984] 2
SCC 404 while considering the question as to who would constitute
Government servant, upon referring to the decision of the Court in Pradvat
Kumar v. Hon'ble Chief Justice a/Calcutta High Court, [1955] 2 SCR
1331 held that the holders of a constitutional post are not eligible to contest
H election to Parliament and the State Legislature in view of Article 102(l)(a)
JUSTICE P. VENUGOPAL v. U.0.1. 297

and Article 19l(J)(a) of the Constitution, as the case may be, because they A
are serving in connection with affairs of the Union and, therefore, are
holding the office of profits under the Central Government.

The said question came up for consideration again before a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in VS. Mal/imath v. Union ofIndia and Another, B
[200 l] 4 SCC 31. The petitioner therein after his retirement as a Chief
Justice of the Kerala High Court was appointed as a Chairman of the
Central Administrative Tribunal and upon retirement from the said office
he was appointed as a member of the National Human Rights Commission,
wherein he continued till he attained the age of 70 years. One of the
contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that he was entitled C
to full salary and the benefit of gratuity for the period he rendered his
service in the National Human Rights Commission. Strong reliance in
support of the aforementioned contention was placed on Pratibha Bonnerjea
(supra). Pattanaik, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for
the Bench referred to Pashupati Nath Sukut (supra) and approved the ratio D
laid down therein and rejected the contention that full salary or gratuity
would be payable to the petitioner.

In Justice Nand Lal Ganguly (supra) the Allahabad High Court
proceeded to determine the matter relying on or on the basis of Pratibha
Bonnerjea alone without considering the matter in details. Even the ratio E
of Pratibha Banerjea was misapplied inasmuch as therein the question of
clubbing of two services did not arise for consideration. For the reasons
mentioned hereinbefore, Justice Nand Lal Ganguly (supra) cannot be held
to have laid down any good law and is overruled accordingly.
F
It may be true that this Court did not grant special leave to appeal
from the judgment of Justice Nand Lal Ganguly (supra) but the same by
itself would not render the decision as binding precedent in terms of Article
141 of the Constitution of India.

In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kera/a and Another, AIR G
(2000) SC 2587 this Court, inter alia, held :

"(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-
speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not
attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the
order under challenge. All that it means is that Court was not
inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal
being filed.

(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e.,
B gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order
has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained
in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court
within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution.
Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is
c stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme
Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the
Court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent
thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court
being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not
D amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or
authority below has stood merged in the order of the
Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the
order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res
judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties."

E We therefore, in agreement with the judgment of the Madras High
Court are of the opinion that for the purpose of computation of pension
different; services of the petitioner could not have been clubbed in terms
of Act 28 of 1954. the pension payable to a High Court Judge would be
only for the period rendered in that capacity which would constitute charge
F to the consolidated fund of India and services rendered subsequent thereto
in terms of the order made by a State Government would not be charged
to the consolidated fund. the question as to whether such a person would
be entitled to pension from the concerned State or not would depend upon
the statute or the terms and conditions of appointment.
G For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that it is not
a fit case wherein special leave to appeal should be granted. The petition
is dismissed accordingly.

R.P. Petition dismissed.