JUDGMENT

ORDER:— This is an application by Shri M. L. Jain, retired Judge of the Delhi High Court questioning the constitutional propriety and legality of the order issued by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Delhi Administration (High Court and Miscellaneous), New Delhi dated July 12, 1988 purporting to fix his pension at Rs. 26,000 per annurn and for an appropriate direction for re-determination of his pension and other pensionary benefits in view of the change in law brought about by High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Acts, 1986 and 1988 (Act Nos. 38 of 1986 and 20 of 1988). This order must in continuation of the earlier order delivered by this Court in M. L Jain v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 355: (AIR 1985 SC 619) by which this Court made a direction for payment of pension to the petitioner at Rs. 21,500 per annum in view of the two ceilings then operating against him, viz. (a) a ceiling under the Rajasthan Rules providing that the maximum amount of pension should not exceed Rs. 1,500 per annum* and (b) that under cl. (is) of Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

* or Rs. 1500 per month - Ed.

2. According to the petitioner, in view of the change in law, the amount of pension payable to him to be re-calculated and redetermined at Rs. 41,600 per annum w.e.f. January 1, 1986 which amount has to be further increased to Rs. 46, 100 per annurn w.e.f. November 1, 1986 in place of the pension of Rs. 21,500 as earlier directed.

3. The question that falls for determination in this order is whether consequent upon the improvement of the service conditions including pension and other benefits by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Acts, 1986 and 1988 and pursuant to the Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare dated April 14, 1987 and April 16, 1987, the pension of the petitioner Shri M. L Jain has to be re-calculated and re-determined at Rs. 41,600 per annum w.e.f. January 1, 1986 which amount has to be further increased to Rs. 46, 100 per annum w. e.f. November 1, 1986 in-place of the pension of Rs. 21,500 as earlier directed. In view of the importance of the question involved, we requested Sri K. Parasaran, learned Attorney General to assist the Court. We are greatly beholder to the learned Attorney General for the assistance that he has rendered.

4. The facts are uncontroverted. The petitioner has had a long and distinguished career in judicial service extending over a period of 30 years and 9 months, including 9 years and 21 days as a Judge of the High Court. When the petitioner was appointed as a Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan on July 1, 1975, he was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service having been a District & Sessions Judge for the period from

9, 1970 to July 1, 1975. On his appointment as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, the petitioner opted, for the purpose of his pension for Part Ill of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. On July 23, 1978 the petitioner was transferred as a Judge of the High Court of Delhi under Art. 222 (1) of the Constitution. On July 24,1978 the petitioner was sworn in as a Judge of the Delhi High Court and continued to hold that office till the date of his retirement on July 21. 1984."

5. In order to appreciate the point in its true perspective, it is necessary to set out the relevant constitutional and other statutory provisions as well as the changes brought about by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Acts, 1986 and 1988, as also the Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare dated April 14, 1987 and April 16, 1987 for upward revision of pension and rationalisation of the same.

6. Art. 221 of the Constitution