1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing and setting aside impugned orders dated 15.11.2017 and 13.09.2017. Consequently, declare the petitioner to be entitled to the benefit of judgments in Government of Nct of Delhi and Ors. vs. All India Young Lawyers Association (Registered) and another: (2009) 14 SCC 49 and P. Ramakrishnam Raju vs. Union of India & Ors. decided in Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 521/2002 and further direct the respondents to add ten years practice of the petitioner as an Advocate at Bar, towards qualifying service. Consequently, revised the Pension and Gratuity of the petitioner and arrears be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner by issuing of a revised PPO, including incorporation of Family Pension.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner is a Law Graduate and was enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Counsel of Delhi on 12.10.1984. The petitioner was appointed as Member (Judicial) in Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench on 12.10.2000. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was governed by CAT (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 1985. The petitioner was treated at par with the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, but in case of no express provision regarding conditions of service at par with secretary to the Government of India. The formula for Pension on completion of two years of service was at a rate of Rs.4,716/- per annum for each completed year of service and the Pension was fixed as per Part III of Schedule of High Court Judges Conditions of Service Rules, 1954. The Pension formula was amended on 22.07.2009 by replacement of per annum amount for pension as Rs.14,532/- per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Copy of Service Rules are at annexure P-3 (Colly).

3. Further case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed for a term of five years and was extended for another term of five years. The petitioner demitted office on completion of his tenure on 10.12.2010. The pension of the petitioner on the formula as per 2009 Rules was fixed as Rs.12,110/- per month. In a PIL filed on behalf of the Bar regarding addition of practice of ten years at Bar to the direct recruits to Delhi Higher Judicial Service was laid at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of All India Young Lawyers Association (Supra) by holding that weightage of practice at Bar while computing pension and other retiral benefits would attract the best talent. Accordingly, ten years practice at Bar has been given weightage to direct recruits in Judicial Service. In year 2006, an amendment was carried out in A.T. Act, 1985 effective from 19.02.2007, whereby the service conditions of members of the Central Administrative Tribunal were brought at par with that of High Court Judges.

4. Mr. Shankar Raju, the petitioner in person submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Constitution Bench Judgment in L.Chandrakumar vs. UOI: 1997 (3) SCC 261 held the status of Central Administrative Tribunal as Court of first instance and also upheld the eligibility of an Advocate to be appointed as Member (Judicial) to be same as eligibility to the High Court Judge under Article 217 of the Constitution of India. This qualification of ten years practice at Bar has not been altered as a qualification for a Member (Judicial) under the A.T. Amended Act, 2006 i.e., post 19.02.2007.

5. The pension of a Member (Judicial), irrespective of the appointment under Unamended or Amended A.T. Act, 1985 is fixed on the basis of a common formula i.e., Under Part III of First Schedule of High Court Judges (Salaries & Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. This has been admitted by the DOPT in an information furnished to Ex-Judicial Member, CAT, Sh. J. K. Kaushik on 08.04.2010 under RTI Act, 2005 which is at Annexure P-5 (Colly). The petitioner demitted office on completion of tenure of ten years on 10.12.2010. The pension was fixed on the basis of formula adopted b