The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to a retired judge based on the interpretation and application of various rules and regulations, including the Central Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, Kerala Service Rules, and the High Court Judges (Conditions of service) Act.

C.S. Rajan, J.

The petitioner had service of 11 years and 5 months as District Judge and as judge of the High Court 10 years, seven months and 17 days. The total judicial services of the petitioner is 22 years and 17 days. As per Ext. P-1 letter of the first respondent sanction for payment of Rs. 80.000/- was issued. The first respondent accepted the recommendation made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission in its interim report and ordered that with effect from 1.4.1995 dearness allowance as linked to the average All India Consumers' Price Index 1201.66 may be treated as dearness pay for reckoning emoluments for the purpose of retirement gratuity and death gratuity under the Central Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The ceiling limit of gratuity was enhanced to R.2.5 lakhs. The fourth respondent addressed a letter to the first respondent as per Ext. P-3 stating that the petitioner would be eligible for Rs. 2,34,720/- as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity as per the revised orders. This Court as per Ext. P-6 judgment, in the case of another retired Judge Sri. S. Padmanabhan held that the orders of the State Government pegging the retirement gratuity payable to a retired High Court Judge to the maximum prescribed by the Kerala Service Rules are illegal, constitutionally invalid and improper. By Ext. P-7 representation the petitioner requested to grant him the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity following Ext. P6 judgment. The third respondent informed the petitioner as per Ext. P-8 letter that the matter had been taken up with the second respondent and the second respondent has informed the third respondent that the matter was under consideration of the Government.

2. This Original Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to pay the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity due to the petitioner on the basis of Ext. P-2 office memorandum untrammelled by the provisions contained in the Kerala Service Rules.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent the stand taken is as follows: In Kerala pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity etc are governed by the rules in Part-Ill KSR. Under these Rules the maximum Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity payable is Rs. 80.000/-, There are no separate rules for the members of the State Judicial Service. The enhancement of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is from Rs.1 lakh to R.2.5 lakhs. The Central Rules had been extended to the judges of the High Court who have been elevated from the State Judicial Service. But the State Government find it difficult to amend these rules with regard to the claim of the members of the State Higher Judiciary alone. Therefore, for the time being it may not be feasible to raise the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity rate to Rs. 2.5 lakhs. According to the counter affidavit, in terms of Ext. P-6 judgment it is for the Central Government to think in terms of any amendment to the rules applicable to Part-III Judges.

4. The learned counsel Sri. P.G.K. Wariyar appearing for the petitioner relied on the ruling of the Supreme court in M.L. Jain v. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 928). In the above case the Supreme Court was considering the ceiling on additional pension in clause (b) of para 2 of Part-III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of service) Act. According to the above clause, a special additional pension of Rs. 1,600/- per annum in respect of each completed year of service is admissible, but in no case such additional pension shall exceed Rs. 8,000/- per annum. Proviso to the above clause fixed a further ceiling of Rs. 54,000/- per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs. 48,000/- per annum in the case of any other judge with respect to the amount of pension under Clauses (a) and (b) of para 2 of Part-Ill of First Schedule. Considering the constitutional validity of the above ceiling limit the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Law and justice sought to justify the limit by r