Back
2003(6) Supreme 550
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., Ashok Bhan and S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Justice P. Venugopal -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15450 of 2003
Decided on 1-8-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, B. Balaji and Satya Mitra Garg, Advocates.
Held : 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 which he has appointed. By reason of notification dated 01.01.1996, Rule 9 of Part 1 of the First Schedule, the minimum pension payable to a retired Judge of the High Court was fixed Rs.51,000/- per annum. (Para 13)
Rule 8 of Part 1 of the Schedule appended to 1954 Act provides that 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. (Para 15)
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 contained Code. It does not contemplate grant of pension 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 said Act and, thus, the court cannot by process of interpretation of statutory or constitutional provisions hold so. (Para 16)
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 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. (Para 26)
ORDER
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 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 Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 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 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 travelling allowances and daily allowances as admissible under the High Court Judges (Travelling Allowance) Rule, 1956."
2. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order dated 29.07.1981, the Government of Tamil Nadu also issued an order on 1.08.1981 appointing the petitioner as a Commission of Inquiry, 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
(ii) to determine the persons who actually took part in such alleged incidents of attack on the said offices and premises."
3. The petitioner despite his superannuation as a High Court Judge 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 emoluments last drawn by him as a Judge of the High Court, minus the pension to which he is eligible, excluding the pension commuted, if any, for the period he functions as the Commission of Inquiry."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Yet again he was appointed by the Government of Madras as a One Man Commission of Inquiry in relation to communal riots which took place in the District of Kanyakumari by an order dated 22.03.1982.
5. 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 Madras High Court, he 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.
6. The petitioner was allowed pension as a High Court Judge for holding office for two years ten months and fourteen days.
7. He in the year 2001 filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court claiming, inter alia, 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 writ petition by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed by the Madras High Court. This is how the petitioner is before us.
8. 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 fact that he held different offices from 01.08.1981 to 31.12.1988.
9. 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 appoint
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
