Supreme Court of India
M.L. JAINversusUNION OF INDIA
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 11
- Decided
- 22 January 1991
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Holding
The ceiling of Rs 8,000 on the special additional pension is ultra vires and violative of Article 14, and is therefore struck down.
Summary
M.L. Jain, a former High Court Judge, had his pension fixed at Rs 21,500 per annum in 1985, later increased to Rs 46,100 per annum after amendments to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. He challenged the ceiling of Rs 8,000 on the special additional pension imposed by clause (b) of paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule of the Act, arguing it was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court examined whether the ceiling was justified, whether it violated the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether it was within the legislative competence. The Court found no rational basis for the additional ceiling, held that it created an unreasonable classification and was therefore ultra vires and violative of Article 14. Consequently, the ceiling was struck down and the petitioner's pension was fixed at Rs 48,000 per annum. The petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the ceiling of Rs 8,000 on the special additional pension under clause (b) of paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 is constitutionally valid.
- Whether the ceiling violates the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the ceiling is ultra vires the parent Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
pensionHigh Court JudgesConditions of Service ActceilingArticle 14ultra viresequalityjudicial service
Judgment
M.L. JAIN
A v.
UNION OF INDIA
JANDA.RY 22, 1991
B [_RANGANATH M~SRA, ~J AND M.fl. Ki\NlA, J.l
The High Court Judges (Conditions pf servicf!) Act, 1954-First
Schf!dufe Part lfl Para 2(b )-,-Ceiling on additional pensip,rz pflud1J'3s-
Held ultra vires. "-- _
P~titioner was a member of fhe State Judicial Service and was
{::: elevated as a Judge of the High Court qn 1.7.1975, find was later trans~
ferred to another High Court from where~ retired on 21.7.1984. A
dispute relating to his pension was disposed of by this Court on 9.4.1985
fixing it at Rs.21,500 per annum. Meanwhile, the High Court Judges
(Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 was amended by Central Acts 38/86
o and 20/88, and he applied under the said Amending Acts asking for
benefits there-under, and this Court refixed the petitioner's pension at
Rs.41,600' per annum w.e.f. 1.1.1986, and ~t Rs.46,100 per ~l!m
w.e.f. 1.11.1986.·
In an interlocutory petition the petition~r ch~µeqg~ t.b.e 4;eiling
E on additional pension appearing in clause (h) qf par@~!l~h 2 pf Piµi ill
oft~~ Firsf Sc~~4ule to the Q:igb Court Judges (Conditions of Servh:e) >-
Act, 1954.
Allowing the petitimh tb.is ~!>urt,
F HELD: 1. There was llO justification to introduce a further ceiling
of Rs~~,9~ ptirc ?11n11111 irre.spe~th't: of tb.e years of completed servic(l
rendered a11d ~Hgw 11 disctjnlinat.iQll to QP.tm•te, Qp~~ tb.e pr.pviSQ ltas fl
limit w~ich ~e~ts the P!!rpo~e. ~Iler~ is no basis fQr the furtller Unlit of
Rs.8,000. [101A]
G 2. The ceiling of Rs.8,000 is not necessary t!l be imposed and if
that is applied, a situation giving rise to tll,e flPpUc11mm of Article 14 of
. the C911sm11tioq d,oes ar~. (JOUl;]
3~ Fixing tl~e pe.nsiQJJ. at Rs.48,0()0 per annum held that the cell- j-
ing in P?ragr11p'1 2(b) of P?rt IJI o( the First Sch.edule is unsustamable
H ~µ~~r Article i4 Qfthe Ccm~tftllti~n and would npt lte oper!ltive, (101Fl
98
M.L. JAIN V. U.0.1. 99
ORIGINAL JURISDJCTlON: Interlocutory Application No. 1
1
A
_ ~-, of 1989.
IN
W.P. N?· 16093of1984etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jpdi~),
-~'
S.M. Jain, S.K. Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain and Pn1.geep Agarwal for
the Petitioner. ·
Arun Jaitly, Additional Solicitor General, Kail11.slt Vasdev and C
Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered:
,Petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and
was elevated as a Jµdge of the Rajasthan High Court on Ju\ly 1, 1975. D
He was transferred to the pelpi High Court from where he retired on
July 21, 1984. A dispµ!e relatiµg to his pension became the subject-
matteT'of a writ petition before this Qeurt and was disposed of on April
9, 1985 (1985 2 SCC 3~~). Thi~ Co»rt fi~ed his pension at Rs.21,500
per annum.
In the meantime. certain Phnnges in th~ High ~pµrt Judges (Con-
ditions of Service) Act, 1954, were.. prgu~lH 11bpµf, fif§t!y, b,y 9@i1tral
Act 38/86 and again by Central Act 20/88. Petjtioner !'!PPlied to this
Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 18044/88 asking fqr benefits
under the Amending Act, This C::o.1.m PY it~ fl~~isiQp PJl ;\µgust
18, 1988, refixed petitioner's pension lit Rs.41,690 per finnum with F
...._ effect from January l, 1986, ancl 11t R~,46, 100 per aI}nUill with effect
from November 1, 1986, keeping th~ twp amendments referred to
above in view (1988 4 SCC 12l). Jn paragraph 19 ofthis Court's order,
it was stated; ·
ffWe refr;:i.in from expressip.g any opinion as to the G
effect Of liftip.~ . of the ceiling On the special additional
--/ pension at Rs,8,000 per annum placed by clause (b) of
paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule. The qµestion
really does not arise for our consideration at the moment
and is left open."
H
p991) 1 S.C.R.
Tpe p~~i~iop.er q~s p.ow applied tq this Court challenging the
A
ceiJing oq aqditiopal pens.ioQ. appearing ip clause (b) of paragraph 2 of ;,-.
P~f~ III of *e fi~~ ~~p_e,qule to tpe High Co~rt Judges (Conditions of
~ervice) A~t pf 1954. ni,e first Schedule deals ~ith pensiop of Judges.
J~dges in H~gh ~o•m ~re r.e~r~ited from three soµrces:
(p) ~em~ers b~longi11~ to tre former Indian Ciyil Seryice; and
( c) officers of the Stat!! Jµdicial Seryice.
Jq tpis cas~ V(f! 11re concem!!d with Part ~II as petitioner had been
e~evated as ;i Ju~ge of the High Court from t~e Rajasthan Stat~ Judi-
,cial Service. In r~spect Of s:u~h a Judge the pension payable js pre-
'scribed tp be: · ·
"(a) ~he pension to which he is entitled under the prd~nary
nJ.les. pf ~is service ~f he had not been appointed ~ Judge,
pis sery~ce as ~ Jµdge ~eing trea~ed as service therein for
the pµrpose of cal.culating niat p~nsioµ; and
(b) a special additional pension of ~s.1,600 per annum in
respe,ct of each ,completed year of service for pension, but
E ip. no case sucQ. add~tional pensioq. ~ogethef ~ith the addi-
'
~~pµal of sp~cj~~ pens!pn, 'if ~PY, to ~qicp he is entitled
~nqer the of~HmH"Y nde of pis ser.v~~e shall exceed Rs.8,000
per ~pn~ni·
-
?r0 yided tq~~ the pension uqq~r·~lause (a) and addi-
tiop.a~ pep.siop. under clause (iJ) together sQ.all in qo case
f
exceed Rs:54,000 per annurµ in the case of a Chief Justice
anq ~s.48,000 pet~n11µrn in c~se of l!-ny other Judge."
Sin~.e tPis ~purt had fixed. tge pe~sion at R.s.46, 109 and petiti_oner's
fl aim fpr ~ei11g put !it p~r with· other Judges by fixing his pension at
A Rs.48,ooo per am1µm h11d not !Je~n accepted, petition~r has approa-
~hed ~his CpHr~ challengi~g the ceiling pf Rs.8,000. According to the
pet!tioner, · h~ p.ad p:ut ill nine years of ~or~ml~t~d serv~ce ~s a Judge
and on th~ p~sis of tl~e proyisio!1 ~Pr specia~ adp~~~onal pension of J-
R.s. l ,600 per ilnnµlJ1 in r~·spe~f of ~ach CO!J!pleted ye11r of service for
pens~oq ne w~s ep.t!tJ~P ~o ~S.: 14,400 b~t the Hmi~ ~µ- t)l.e prpviso wpulq
H .hfl~~ ~h~ eff~c~ Hf fixi~g ~~iHr,g a~ Rs.48,099 per al}num. Ther~ ~as po.-
M.L. JAIN v. U.0.1. 101
justification to introducl:! a further ceiling of Rs.8,000 per annum A
irrespective of the years of completed service rendered and allow a
discrimination to operate. Once the proviso has a limit which meets
the purpose there is no basis for the fiirther limit of Rs.8,000 as con-
tained in paragraph (2) above.
The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Law and B
Justice sought to justify the limit by referring to cases of Central Civil
--·
Service Officers retiring as Secretaries to Government where full
credit was not being given for the entire period of service rendered and
a ceiling was fixed. Such a ceiling actually is fixed in respect of all the
three situations covered by the First Schedule. A member of the Bar
with 14 years of completed service out of which six years are served as
a Chief Justice or as a Judge of the Supreme Court gets the maximum c
pension of Rs.54,000 and in the event of his retirement without becom"
ing Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court, his pension entitle-
ment is Rs.48,000 per annum. Similar is the provision relating to the
T members of the Indian Civil Service who were earlier elevated as
Judges. It is the contention of the petitioner that once a ceiling limit
D
was fixed as contained in the proviso of the Third Part, there was no
further justification for the paragraph 2(b) ceiling. We find full force in
the submission. The reasons which weighed with this Court on the
earlier occasion for enhancing the petitioner's pension fully apply to
the present aspect. The ceiling of Rs.8,000, therefore, is not necessary
to be imposed and if that is applied, a situation giving rise to the
E
application of Art. 14 of the Constitution does arise. In fact, the 1"·e-
sence of the proviso clearly brings out the intention that n0 :mp• 1s
sought to be made between Judges recruited from the diffetc1H sources
for the matter of the ceiling on pension. We, therefore, modify the
order of this Court fixing petitioner's pension at Rs.46, 100 and require
his pension to be fixed at Rs.48,000 per annum by holding that the
F
ceiling in paragraph 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule is unsustain-
able under Art. 14 of the Constitution and would not be operative. We
direct that petitioner's pension from November 1, 1986, shall be fixed
at Rs.48,000 a year.
We would make it clear that as we have held that paragraph 2(b)
is ultra -vires, it will follow that all cases to which the present situatio .. G
applied should be revised by the Union of India without requiring
representations or applications from the retired Judges concerned.
There would be no order as to costs.
V.P.R. Petition allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pension"Sign in to search