1. Pension fixation of retired High Court judge under Kerala Service Rules and High Court Judges Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2007 Supreme(SC) 305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.K. SEMAAND R.Y. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.
N.D.P. NAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 2327 - 28 of 1999
Decided on March 8, 2007
Advocates appeared
T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Subramonium Prasad and Gopalakrishnan R., Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General and T.S. Doabia, Senior Advocate (Ms Kiran Bhardwaj, P. Parameswaran, B. Krishna Prasad and G. Prakash, Advocates, with them) for the Respondents.
For pension calculations, a specifically defined term like "emolument" must be interpreted restrictively according to the rules rather than in its general sense. Furthermore, any ceiling on special additional pension that violates Article 14 of the Constitution is invalid and unenforceable.
Headnote:(A) High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 - First Schedule, Part III - Service Rules - Rule 62 and Rule 12(23) - Pension calculation - Definition of "emolument" - Whether the term "emolument" used for ascertaining average emolument for ordinary pension includes dearness allowance and other special allowances - Where a word is defined for specific purposes, such as pension calculation, the definition must be construed specifically and not in its general or expansive sense - The word "includes" in a definition can, depending on context, be construed as "comprises" or "consists of," meaning the definition may be exhaustive rather than extensive - If basic pay and dearness pay are specifically included in the definition of "emolument," and dearness allowance or other allowances are omitted, such omissions are significant and indicate that the definition is intended to be restrictive. (Paras 17, 18, 20)
(B) High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 - First Schedule, Part III, para 2(b) - Special additional pension - Ceiling on additional pension - Ceiling prescribed under para 2(b) is unconstitutional and invalid, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; therefore, special additional pension should be calculated without reference to any such ceiling. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
A retired Judge challenged the fixation of his pension, contending that "emolument" for calculating ordinary pension should include dearness allowance and special allowances in addition to basic pay. He further contended that the special additional pension should be calculated without any ceiling.
Findings of Court:
The court held that for the purpose of pension calculation, "emolument" only comprises pay and dearness pay; therefore, dearness allowance and special allowance cannot be added. However, the ceiling on special additional pension was found to be invalid.
Issues: Whether the term "emolument" in the service rules includes all allowances or is limited to pay and dearness pay; and whether the ceiling on special additional pension under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that in service rules governing pensions, definitions are specific to avoid ambiguity. The use of "includes" in the relevant rule was interpreted as "comprises," limiting emoluments to pay and dearness pay. Regarding the special pension, the court affirmed that a ceiling violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is unconstitutional and cannot be applied.
Result: Appeals allowed in part.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- service law
- statutory interpretation
-
constitutional law
- right to equality (Para 24)
Table of Contents
2. State argued emolument means only basic pay; appellant argued includes dearness and special allowances. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. Rule 62 defines emolument as comprising pay and dearness pay; ceiling on special additional pension unconstitutional. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Emolument for pension under Kerala Service Rules includes only pay and dearness pay; special additional pension ceiling invalid. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
5. Appeal partly allowed: ordinary pension upheld, special additional pension recalculated without ceiling; no recovery of excess. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Does 'emolument' under Rule 62 of Kerala Service Rules include dearness allowance and special allowances?
No. The term 'emolument' for pension calculation comprises only pay and dearness pay, as 'includes' meant 'comprises'. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
7. Is the word 'includes' in a definition clause always expansive?
Not always. Depending on context, 'includes' can mean 'comprises' or 'means and includes', giving an exhaustive explanation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
8. Is the ceiling on special additional pension under para 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges Act valid?
No. The ceiling was held unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 in M.L. Jain (III). (Para 24 )
Judgment
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. - These appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment dated 10 - 7 - 1997 in Writ Appeal No. 804 of 1992 and the order f: dated 10 - 11 - 1997 in Review Petition No. 299 of 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.
2. The appellant entered the Kerala Higher Judicial Service as a directly recruited District and Sessions Judge and was later elevated as a Judge of the Kerala High Court in the year 1972. He retired on 31 - 7 - 1980 with 23 years of pensionable service which included 8 years of service as a Judge of the High Court. At the time of his retirement, the appellant was in receipt of a total emolument of Rs 4237 comprising basic pay of Rs 3500, dearness allowance of Rs 437 and special allowance of Rs 300.
3. The pension payable to the High Court Judges is governed by Chapter III of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). Clause (b) of sub - section (1) of Section 15 provides that every Judge who was not a member of the Indian Civil Service but has held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State, shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of the First Schedule. The proviso thereto and sub - section (2) require such Judge to exercise certain options. The appellant was governed by Part III of the First Schedule to the Act as he did not opt for pension under Part I of that Schedule. Part III of the First Schedule is extracted below:
"1. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who has held any pensionable post under the Union or a State (but is not a member of the Indian Civil Service) and who has not elected to receive the pension payable under Part I.
2. The pension payable to such a Judge shall be -
(a) the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules of his service if he had not been appointed a Judge, his service as a Judge being treated as service therein for the purpose of calculating that pension; and
(b) a special additional pension of Rs 1600 per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pension but in no case such additional pension together with the additional or special pension, if any, to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules of his service, shall exceed Rs 8000 per annum:
Provided that the pension under clause (a) and the additional pension under clause (b) together shall in no case exceed Rs 54,000 per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs 48,000 per annum in the case of any other Judge."
[Note. - The special additional pension was Rs 700 per annum and the ceiling was Rs 3500 per annum under clause (b) and these were substituted as Rs 1600 and Rs 8000 respectively with effect from 1 - 11 - 1986.]
The pension payable to the appellant was fixed at Rs 17,300 per annum (comprised of Rs 13,800 as ordinary pension and Rs 3500 as special additional pension).
4. The Government of India vide official memorandum dated 16 - 4 - 1987 rationalised the pension structure of the employees who retired prior to 1 - 1 - 1986. Clause 4.1 thereof provided for additional relief for existing pensioners. Clause 5 provided for calculation of pension at 50% of average emoluments in the case of pensioners whose pension was calculated under the slab formula. Clause 6.1 related to consolidation of pension and provided that the pension of existing pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 1 - 1 - 1986 by adding together (a) the existing pension, (b) the existing dearness relief, and (c) the additional benefits accruing from paras 4 and 5 of the said OM dated 16 - 4 - 1987. The said OM was not applicable to retired High Court Judges whose pension was governed by separate rules/orders and stated that necessary orders will be issued in their cases by the respective authorities.
5. By circular dated 18 - 12 - 1987, the Government of India notified the Accountant Generals of all States that the ordinary pension admissible to High Cour
