JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who retired as Acting Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order and declaration that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits, applicable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court.

2. That the petitioner joined services as a member of the Karnataka Judicial Service in the year 1988. He was elevated to the High Court of Karnataka in the year 2000. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Gauhati High Court as a puisne Judge. That on 13.08.2014, in exercise of powers under Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. He served in that capacity for 14 months and retired as Acting Chief Justice on 20.10.2015. While serving as Acting Chief Justice, the petitioner was paid his salaries and allowances admissible to a Chief Justice, as contemplated in the Second Schedule, Part-D, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Constitution of India and under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1954 Act’).

2.1 That on 20.07.2015, when the petitioner was holding the post of Acting Chief Justice, the Registry of the Gauhati High Court sent the required documents for fixation of the petitioner’s pension and gratuity to the Central Government. The petitioner claimed the pensionary benefits as may be available to the Chief Justice. However, the Department of Law and Justice informed the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled to the higher pension ceiling of Rs. 5,40,000/- being the pension available to a Chief Justice and therefore requested to furnish the revised pension report fixing the pension at Rs. 4,80,000/- annually. The Registry of the High Court wrote to the Department of Law and Justice that vide Rule 7 of Part-I of the First Schedule to the 1954 Act, the petitioner was entitled to pension admissible to the Chief Justice. At this stage, it is required to be noted that initially the petitioner elected to seek pension under Part-III of the First Schedule to the 1954 Act. However, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently he clarified that he is seeking pension under Part-I of the First Schedule to the 1954 Act. The aforesaid shall be dealt with herein-below.

2.2 That thereafter the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India rejected the contention of the High Court that the petitioner was entitled to receive his pension as a Chief Justice, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, direction or order and declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits as that of the Chief Justice.

3. Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as per para 10 of Part-D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of India, there shall be paid to the Judges of the High Courts, in respect of time spent on actual service, salary at the rates mentioned therein. It is submitted that as per para 11 of Part-D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of India, the expression “Chief Justice” includes an Acting Chief Justice. It is submitted that therefore Part-D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of India, in the matter of pay and perks, equates the Acting Chief Justice with the Chief Justice.

3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as per Section 2(1)(a) of the 1954 Act “Acting Chief Justice” means a Judge appointed under Article 223 of the Constitution to perform the duties of the Chief Justice. It is submitted that as per Section 2(1)(g) of the 1954 Act “Judge” means a Judge of a High Court and includes the Chief Justice, Acting Chief Justice, an additional Judge and Acting