The court acknowledged an error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee and allowed the IA in favor of the applicants, highlighting the importance of ensuring adequacy in the revision of pension for retired judicial officers.

Headnote:
Pension - Judicial Officers - Revision of pension for retired judicial officers was fixed at 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, resulting in a lower pension amount than before revision. High Court and State Government supported the case of the applicants. Error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee acknowledged. IA allowed in favor of the applicants.
Fact of the Case:

The applicants, retired judicial officers, were aggrieved by the recommendation of the Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which fixed the revised pension at 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, resulting in a lower pension amount than before revision.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the grievance of the applicants to be justified, with support from the High Court and State Government. Acknowledged an error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee and allowed the IA in favor of the applicants.
Issues: Revision of pension for retired judicial officers, adequacy of the recommended pension amount, support from High Court and State Government, error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acknowledged the error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee and accepted the prayer of the applicants, allowing the IA in their favor.
Final Decision: IA No. 5 stands disposed of in favor of the applicants.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 223/2007:

1. Put up next week.

I.A. No. 5 of 2009 in I.A. No. 244 in W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989:

The applicants in this IA are judicial officers who retired aJanuary 01, 1996, but prior to January 2006. They are aggrieved by the recommendation of Justice Padmanabhan Committee, as contained in paragraph 31 of its report. Paragraph 31 of the recommendations of the Committee, insofar as it is relevant, is as under:

Para 31: The recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission with respect to past pensioners are given in paragraph 23.18 which are as under:

1) The revised pension of the retired judicial officers should be 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time.

xxx

2. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate appearing for the applicants, pointed out that the Padmanabhan Committee, apparently due to oversight, fixed the revised pension of the concerned judicial officers at 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time. Consequently, as a result of the revision, the concerned judicial officers are getting as pension an amount which is lower than what they earlier received before revision.

3. The grievance of the applicants appears to be justified and it is significant to note that both the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, in their respective responses, have supported the case of the applicants.

4. Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned amicus curiae, also submitted that there was evidently some error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee.

5. We, accordingly, accept the prayer of the applicants and allow this IA in terms of prayer Clause (i) of the application.

6. IA No. 5 stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 1 of 2008 in I.A. No. 213 of 2007:

As prayed on behalf of the applicant, put up after four weeks.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document