Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Ajit Kumar Pande Ex-member Judicial - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
LPA 453 of 2021
Decided On : 01-11-2022
PENSION - QUALIFYING SERVICE - ACT OF 1987, RULES OF 1989 - The court discussed the appellant's claim for counting 10 years of practice as an Advocate for pension calculation. The court highlighted the statutory provisions of the Act of 1987 and the Rules of 1989, emphasizing that the appellant's pensionary provisions are governed by the Rules of 1989 and cannot seek payment of pension in a manner different from the one prescribed by the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a former Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), filed a writ petition seeking to include 10 years of practice as a Lawyer for pension calculation. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's pensionary provisions are governed by the Rules of 1989 and cannot seek payment of pension in a manner different from the one prescribed by the rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the period of 10 years at Bar preceding the appellant's appointment as a Member (Judicial) of the RCT should be calculated for the purpose of payment of pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's pensionary provisions are governed by the Rules of 1989 and cannot seek payment of pension in a manner different from the one prescribed by the rules.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act and is arising out of the judgment & order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 1201/2021 titled Ajit Kumar Pande, Ex-Member (Judicial) RCT Vs. Union of India, Through Chairman Railway Board.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court has filed a writ petition for issuance of a writ, order, or direction directing the respondent/ Union of India (UOI) to take into account 10 years of practice as a Lawyer for the purpose of calculating the pension in addition to the qualifying service of the appellant as Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT). The appellant has also prayed for other reliefs in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 04.10.2021.
3. The facts of the case further reveal that the appellant/ petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) on 24.04.1990 and he also cleared the Advocate-on-Record Examination on 15.10.1998. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by UOI, the appellant/ petitioner was selected and appointed on 20.04.2015 to the post of Member (Judicial), Kolkata Bench of the RCT. The petitioner joined the aforesaid post on 22.04.2015 and was transferred to various Benches of the RCT. He successfully completed his 5 years tenure as Member (Judicial) of the RCT on 21.04.2020.
4. The facts further reveal that the appellant/ petitioner was appointed in response to a notification dated 10.09.1989 issued by the Ministry of Railways. The service conditions of the appellant/ petitioner were governed by the statutory provisions as contained under the Railway Claims Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1989). The qualification for appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members finds place under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1987). The statutory provisions providing qualifications for appointment to the post of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Members are reproduced as under:
'5. Qualifications for appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member.-- (1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman unless he-
(a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) has, for at least two years, held the office of a Vice-Chairman.
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Vice-Chairman unless he--
(a) is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court; or\
(b) has been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in Grade I of that Service or any higher post for at least five years; or
(c) has, for at least five years, held a civil judicial post carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India; or
(d) has, for at least five years, held a post under a railway administration carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India and has adequate knowledge of rules and procedure of, and experience in, claims and commercial matters relating to railways; or
(e) has, for a period of not less than three years, held office as a Judicial Member or a Technical Member.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judicial Member unless he--
(a) is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) has been a Member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in Grade I of that Service for at least three years; or
(c) has, for at least three years, held a civil judicial post carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India.
(4) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Technical Member unless he has, for at least three years, held a post under a railway administration carrying
AI
Pension benefits for Members (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal are governed strictly by applicable statutory rules, and prior legal practice cannot be included as qualifying service.
Employment and Service matter – Pension - While considering Tribunal Rules of 2020, which were notified held Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and Members of Tribunals appointed prior, shall be governe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a former Judge of the High Court to blend her service periods and have her pensionary payments computed based on her last drawn ....
Pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement – However, law does not allow employer to apply rules differently in relation to perso....
Minimum qualifying service of ten years is necessary for pension eligibility, and previous judgments establishing non-eligibility cannot be relitigated, even with changes in rules.
The right to practice law as an advocate is a statutory privilege contingent upon meeting specific legal qualifications, not an absolute fundamental right.
Family pension is included in the definition of pension under the Judges Act, entitling the spouse of a retired Chairperson to claim it.
Past service in different capacities cannot be combined for gratuity claims under the High Court Judges Act, as continuity of service is not established by gaps between different roles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
