Three former Judges of this Court are seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the Karnataka Civil Services Rules read with Government Order No. FD (Spl.) 1 Pet 99, Bangalore, dated 5-2-1999 (Annexure-G) insofar as it limits the gratuity payable to the petitioners to Rs. 2,50,000/- as unconstitutional and illegal. The seek for a direction for a maximum gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the case on hand. All the three petitioners before elevation have worked as District and Sessions Judges in various places. They were initially elevated as Additional Judges of his Court and thereafter they were made permanent in terms of the averments made in the writ petition. All the three Judges have attained the age of superannuation and now they have retired from the office as a Judge of this Court. While fixing the pension, the respondents have chosen to take into consideration the maximum ceiling of Rs. 2,50,000/- in respect of gratuity in terms of the Government Order dated 15-2-1999. According to the petitioners sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 of the Central Rules, the maximum gratuity payable is Rs. 3,50,000/- and the same is not made over. They would say that the Judges elevated from the Bar are provided pension on the basis of a ceiling of Rs. 3,50,000/and where as in the case of elevation from the cadre of District Judges, a ceiling of Rs. 2,50,000/- is taken into consideration. This according to them is in violation of Article 14 of he Constitution of India.

2. This Court issued notice to the respondents. The Central Government has filed an affidavit stating that they have no objection for enhancement of DCRG benefits from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- in the case of employees of All India Services' Officers with effect from 1-1-1996. They would also say that the Union of India has no objection for enhancing subject to the State Government adopting the memorandum dated 18-2-1998. In fact they have enclosed Annexure-R(1), dated 18-2-1998. No statement is filed by the State.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the State.

4. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. Before I touch upon the merits of the matter, I deem it proper to observe that the Chapter V of the Indian Constitution deals with the High Court in the State. Article 217 provides for appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of the High Court. In terms of Article 217(2) of the Constitution, a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and has at least for ten years held the judicial office in the territory of India or at least an Advocate for ten years in the High Court. After appointment in terms of the Constitution, both the persons namely a Judicial Officer elevated as a Judge and an Advocate elevated as a Judge have the same status. It is needless for this Court to emphasize the importance attached to the constitutional post of a High Court Judge. A Judge of the High Court has tremendous responsibility in terms of the constitutional obligation and he holds a responsible constitutional post in the matter of judicial function in terms of the Constitution. The people of this country have reposed tremendous faith in this organ of the constitution. The numerous petitions filed in High Courts by rich, poor, educated, illiterate, etc., would show that the people of this country have confidence and high respect for the system and for a Judge of High Court in this country. To retain the said confidence and to maintain the status of an office of a Judge, the Government has to see that the service conditions of a Judge are reasonably good taking into consideration the importance attached to the said post. Service conditions even after retirement have to be fairly attractive as otherwise, the best brains in the legal field may not chose to opt for judgeship. It cannot be forgotten that a Judge has to be satisfied financially i