Pension is a right, not a bounty, and pensioners drawing lower pension should receive full neutralization of price rise.

C.S. Rajan, J.

The petitioner is a retired judge of this Court. His career as a judge of this Court has been described as "one long glorious straight line". The petitioner is the third retired High Court Judge who had approached this Court for settling pensionary claims in the recent years. The petitioner's pension and allied matters are governed by the High Court Judges (Conditions of service) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act. ). Following the provisions of the Act the petitioner was granted a pension of Rs. 16,000/- per annum evidenced by Ext. P1. There was a revision of pension payable to the High Court Judges who retired before 1.11.1986. The petitioner retired on 19,12.1983. Consequent on the revision of the pension, -the basic pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2,191/-per mensem. In 1991 the pension was again revised to Rs. 3,144/-per mensem. In addition to the basic pension, the petitioner is also receiving dearness relief on pension according to the rates in force from time to lime. The present rate of dearness relief as on the date of the filing of the Original Petition, is contained in Ext. P2 dated 7.4.1995. In accordance with Ext. P2, the petitioner is receiving dearness relief on his pension at the rate of 81% subject to a minimum of Rs. 2,820/- per mensem.

2. The percentage of dearness relief on pension is the same to all the serving judges of the High Court, All India Service Officers and other Central Government officials. Whenever the dearness allowance is increased in the case of Central Government officers, a corresponding increase is ordered in the case of judges, both serving and retired. Ext. P3 dated 28.3.1995 is the order by which the percentage of dearness allowance payable to Central Government officers was fixed. By the letter dated 28.4.1995 the above increase was extended to the sitting judges of the High Court. The complaint of the petitioner is that though the percentage of rate of dearness relief and dearness allowance for all the persons covered by the Government Orders is the same, the amount that is taken into account for payment of the dearness relief for retired judges is different. The petitioner has illustrated the above disparity by giving a table which is as follows:

3. Therefore, in the case of pensioners, there is a discretionary treatment. According to the petitioner, the pensioner is also entitled to he paid dearness allowance at the same rate which a serving officer is getting. According to the petitioner, the classification has no relation to the objects sought to be achieved. The object of payment of the dearness relief and dearness allowance is to compensate the fall in the value of rupee and the increasing cost of living. A serving officer as well as a retired person is feeling the impact of the fall in the value of rupee and in the increase in the cost of living in a similar manner. In fact, according to the petitioner, the impact of the objects would be more keenly felt by the pensioners than in the case of serving officers.

4. Sri. P.K. Kurian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner elaborated the above argument with the help of various Supreme Court rulings. The learned Senior Counsel referred to various paragraphs of D.S. Nakara's case (the Magna Carta of Pensioners) reported in AIR 1983 SC 130). In the above case, Justice Desai has analysed the evolution of the concept of pension in the following words.

"20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grade of the employer not claimable as a right to and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR 1971 SC 1409) wherein this court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a gove