Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1545

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
All India Judges Asson. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No. 17 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009, I.A. Nos. 1 & 2 in I.A. No. 17 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009, I.A. Nos. 334, 336, 338, 339, 342, 343, 344, 345 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989
Decided On : 14-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.P. Rao, Mrs. M.V. Rama, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR, Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, AOR, Mr. T.S. Shanthi, Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR, Mr. Bharat Sangal, AOR, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Ms. Daggar Malhotra, Mr. Pravir Kumar Jain, AOR, Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR, Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR and Mr. S.N. Bhat, AOR
For the Respondents:Mr. Dusyant Dave, Mr. H.A. Ahmadi, Mr. Vivek Mishra, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. S.S. Pillaniya, Advocates, Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR, Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Mr. Srilok Nath, Mr. Dinesh Minocha, Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, AAG, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Dr. J.P. Dhanda, AOR, Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AAG, Ms. Archana Singh, Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR, Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR, Mr. Alok Kumar, AOR, Mr. A. Sharan, Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR, Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Mr. Prithvi Pal, Mr. Manish, Mr. Anil Nag, AOR, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR, Mr. Anip Sachthey, AOR, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR, Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Mr. A. Subba Rao, Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, AOR, Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Ms. Ankita Chadha, Mr. K.L.D.S. Vinober, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, AOR, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, AOR, Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR, Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR, Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, AOR, Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Ms. Linthoingambi Thongam, Mr. Z.H. Haiping, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR, Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR, Mr. B.D. Sharma, AOR, Mr. B.S. Banthia, AOR, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR, Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar, AOR, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, AOR, Ms. Pallavi Chopra, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Mr. S.S. Rawat, Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Mr. Harish K., Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR, Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Shivam Singh, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Ms. Varsha Poddar, Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Mr. Jishnu M.L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR, Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR, Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ashok Kumar Juneja, Mr. Vijendra Kasana, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR, Mr. Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, AOR, Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, AOR, Mr. Kishan Datta, AOR, Mr. K. Ram Kumar, AOR, Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR, Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, AOR, Mr. L.K. Pandey, AOR, Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Mr. Durga Dutt, Mr. P.R. Bahl, Mr. H.P. Sahu, Mr. Chinmaya, Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, AOR, Mr. Ravi C. Prakash, Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy, AOR, Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR, Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR, Mr. M. Veerappa, AOR, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR, Mr. Kshatrshal Raj, For M/s. Parekh & Co., Mr. P.I. Jose, AOR, Mr. Nitin K. Singh, Mr. Vinodkumar K., Mr. P.K. Jain, AOR, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR, Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR, Mr. Prasanth P., AOR, Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR, Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR, Mr. Pravir Choudhary, AOR, Mr. P.V. Dinesh, AOR, Mr. Ravi Kant Pal, Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR, Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR, Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR, Mr. Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani, AOR, Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR, Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, AOR, Mr. R.N. Keshwani, AOR, Mr. Romy Chacko, AOR, Mr. R. Sathish, AOR, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR, Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, AOR, Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, AOR, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Ms. Runa Bhuyan, Mr. Adeel Ahmed, Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR, Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Madhu Sinha, Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR, Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, AOR, Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, AOR, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR, Mr. S.R. Setia, AOR, Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Mithu Jain, Mr. Puneeth K.G., Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR, Mr. Surya Kant, AOR, Mrs V.D. Khanna, AOR, Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, AOR, Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair, AOR, Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR, Mr. T.L. Garg, AOR, Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR, Mr. T.V. George, AOR, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, AOR, Mr. S. Prabu R., Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR, Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, AOR. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mr. Yusuf Khan, Mr. Anuradha Arputham, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co., Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR, Ms. A. Subhashini, AOR, Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR, Ms. Bina Gupta, AOR, M/s Corporate Law Group, AOR, M/s Gagrat & Co., AOR, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR, Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, AOR, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR, M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR, Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR, Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR, M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR, Ms. S. Janani, AOR, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. Indiara, Mr. Balasubramanian, Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Ms. Monika, Mr. C.D. Singh, Mr. D.S. Parmar, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Ms. Saumya Kalra, Mr. Udita Arora, Mr. Wasim A. Quadri, Mr. Tufail A. Khan, Mr. B.K. Prasad, Mr. Yunus Malik, Mr. Anish Maheshwari, Ms. Rajeeta Raj, Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Mr. Sunil K. Jain, Mr. Akarsh Garg, Mr. Kaushik Choudhary, Mr. Krishnanand Pandey, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Mr. Edward Belho, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Mr. T.R. Rama Rao, Mr. K. Veera Reddy, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Prateek Yadav, Mr. Ankit Raj, Mr. Irshad Ahmed, Mr. R. Ramesh and Mrs. A. Sumati

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct State Governments to implement pension revision for retirees based on the recommendations of the Justice Padmanabhan Committee.

Headnote:
IA No. 339 & 336 - Pension Revision - Recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee, VIth Central Pay Commission - Para 31 of the recommendations of the Committee - Revision of pension for judicial officers - Court accepts the prayer of the applicants and directs State Governments to implement the directions contained in the order dated 8.10.2012 for retirees between 1.1.1996 and 31.12.2005.
Fact of the Case:

The applicants, judicial officers who retired after January 01, 1996, but prior to January 2006, were aggrieved by the recommendation of Justice Padmanabhan Committee regarding the revision of their pensions. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh supported the applicants' case. The court accepted the applicants' prayer and directed State Governments to implement the directions contained in the order dated 8.10.2012 for retirees between 1.1.1996 and 31.12.2005.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the grievance of the applicants to be justified and noted the support of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. The court accepted the prayer of the applicants and directed State Governments to implement the directions contained in the order dated 8.10.2012 for retirees between 1.1.1996 and 31.12.2005.
Issues: The main issue was the revision of pension for judicial officers who retired after January 01, 1996, but prior to January 2006, based on the recommendations of the Justice Padmanabhan Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the grievance of the applicants, the support of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the acceptance of the applicants' prayer.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications and directed State Governments to implement the directions contained in the order dated 8.10.2012 for retirees between 1.1.1996 and 31.12.2005.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 339 & 336

These applications, in our considered opinion, are practically superfluous, inasmuch the very grievance expressed in these applications was already addressed, considered and dealt with in IA No. 5 of 2009 in I.A. No. 244 in WP (C) No. 1022/1989 in the order dated 8.10.2012. In the said application, the prayer of the applicant was as under:-

"(i) the existing pensions of all past pensioners who retired after 1.1.1996 and the pensioners whose pensions were consolidated as per Karnataka model shall be raised by 3.07 times on par with the other pensioners subject to minimum of 50% of the revised pay scale of pay of their respective post;

(ii) and in the alternative, consolidation of the existing pensions of the above section of pensioners as per the methodology adopted by the Central Government in pursuance of recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission in para 4.1 of the O.M.F. No. 38/37/08 P & PW(A) Government of India dated 1.9.2008."

2. While considering the prayer in the said application, the following order came to be issued:-

"IA No. 5 of 2009 in I.A. No. 244 in WP(C) No. 1022/1989

The applicants in this IA are judicial officers who retired after January 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:-

"Pare 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.

xx xx xx"

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.

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.

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

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

I.A. No. 5 stands disposed of."

3. After noting the above said order already passed by this Court on 8.10.2012 and also a G.O. issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. No. 86 dated 19.7.2013 complying with the directions contained in the order dated 8.10.2012, we issued notice to all the State Governments as well as the High Courts in our order dated 28.4.2016 and called for their response. Only three states have responded by filing reply affidavit, namely, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. While on behalf of State of Orissa, time of two weeks was sought for to file the Status Report, the State of Tamil Nadu after referring to the manner in which the pension is being dispensed to the retirees prior to 1.1.2006 ultimately submitted that the State will abide by the orders/directions to be issued by this Court. So far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, a peculiar stand is being taken to the effect that in the State of Himachal Pradesh a different pattern of pension is being adopted with reference to other State Government employees, which is being applied to Judicial Officers as well. Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh drew our attention

Click Here to Read the rest of this document