Back
1996(1) Supreme 20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ahmadi, C.J.I. and K.S. Paripoornam, J.
Union of India & Others -Appellants
versus
Pratibha Bonnerjea & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6020 of 1994
Decided on 21.11.1995.
Held : If she was holding a pensionable post under the Union/State, there can be no doubt that she would not be entitled to pension under Part I but would be entitled to pension under Part III of the First Schedule. That gives rise to the question whether a High 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 I of the First Schedule to the Act. (Para 3)
Held further : A Judge of the High Court, therefore, occupies a unique position under the Constitution. He would not be able to discharge his duty without fear or favour, affection or illwill, unless he is totally independent of the executive, which he would not be if he is regarded as a Government servant. He is clearly a holder of a constitutional office and is able to function independently and impartially because he is not a Government servant and does not take orders from anyone. (Para 5)
We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the relationship between the Government and High Court Judges is not of master and servant. They cannot be said to be holding a post under the Union/State. (Para 6)
Held finally : For the above reasons we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal was right in the view it took in this behalf. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs. (Para 7)
The Supreme Court has clarified that the service of a High Court Judge is a unique constitutional office, distinct from ordinary civil service or government employment. When a High Court Judge transitions to a role in a Tribunal, such as the Central Administrative Tribunal, this constitutes a new appointment under a different statutory framework. As a result, the previous judicial service does not automatically influence or determine the entitlements in the new role, unless the applicable statute explicitly provides for "clubbing" or combining benefits or entitlements across these separate appointments.
This means that the pension, allowances, or other service-related benefits in the Tribunal role are governed independently by the specific rules and statutes applicable to that Tribunal, and not merely by the entitlements associated with the judicial office. The constitutional distinction and the statutory independence of such appointments imply that entitlements are not automatically "clubbable" or merged unless the law clearly prescribes such a provision.
JUDGMENT
Ahmadi, CJI-Two questions are raised in this appeal, namely, (i) the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and (ii) the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the pension admissible to the respondent as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal had to be determined under Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Services) Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act . The brief facts which we are required noticed run as follows:
2. The first respondent was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Calcutta on 13th January, 1978 and she retired as much with effect from 16th February, 1989. Soon thereafter on 3rd March, 1989 she was appointed a Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal which post she relinquished on 16th February, 1992 on retirement. Admittedly she was drawing pension on retirement as High Court Judge. For the period between 3rd March, 1989 and 16th February, 1992 she served as the Vice-Chairman and was entitled to pension. She contended that her pension should be fixed under Part I whereas the Union s contention was that she was entitled to pension admissible under Part III of the First Schedule to the Act. As her contention was not conceded she filed O.A. No. 513 of 1992 in the Central Administrative Tribunal for relief as per her point of view. The Union raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and on merit contended that the department s point of view is unassailable. The Tribunal upheld both the contentions of the respondent and hence this appeal by special leave.
3. We do not propose to go into the question of jurisdiction as we deem it proper to settle the question of fixation of pension so that the first respondent is not driven from pillar to post. We will, therefore, address ourselves to the question of pension admissible to the first respondent. We may at the outset refer to Rule 15A of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985. It reads as under :
"15A. 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 Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and High Court Judges (Travelling Allowances) Rules, 1956."
Thus the conditions of service and other perquisites available to the Vice-Chairman shall be the same as admissible to a serving judge of a High Court. A serving judge of a High Court is entitled to pension under Chapter III of the Act. Section 14 says that every Judge, shall, on retirement be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part I of the First Schedule, provided he is not a member of the ICS or has not held any other pensionable post under the Union or State. Section 15 provides that every Judge who is not a member of the ICS but has held any other persionable civil post under the Union or State, shall, on retirement be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of the First Schedule. The provisions of Part I apply to a Judge who is not a member of the ICS or has not held any other other pensionable post under the Union or a State and also apply to a Judge who, being the member of ICS or having held any pensionable civil post under the Union or a State, has elected to receive the pension payable under the said Part. On the other hand the provisions of Part III apply to a Judge who has held any pensionable post under the Union or a State but is not a member of the ICS and who has not elected to receive the pension payable under Part I. The first respondent was a direct recruit from the Bar when she was appointed a Judge of the High Court and, therefore, on her retirement she became entitled to pension under Part I of the First Schedule. There is no doubt,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
