Whether a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, who was appointed in the year 1989 and demitted office in the year 1994, is eligible for the benefit of the judgment in Ramakrishna Raju v. Union of India 2014 (2) KLT 218(SC) and entitled to get the pension refixed reckoning 10 years of bar practice, is the issue which arises for consideration.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Member of Central Administrative Tribunal on 10.7.1989, while he had been practising as an Advocate since 19.8.1959. The appointment of the Judicial Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) is governed by Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). At the time of appointment of the petitioner, (prior to the amendment to the Act in 2007) Subsection 3 of Section 6 of the Act, which provided for the qualification of Judicial Member read as follows.

“6. Qualifications for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Members.-

xxxx

(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.”

As per Subsection 4 and 5, the appointment of a Judicial Member in CAT is to be made by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. After the amendment to the Act by Act 1 of 2007, the qualification for appointment of a Judicial Member is governed by clause (b) of Subsection 2 of Section 6, which read as follows:

“Section 6. Qualifications for appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other members:

(1) xxx

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment,-

(a) xxxx

(b) as a Judicial Member, unless he is or qualified to be a Judge of a High Court or he has for at least two years held the post of a Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or the Legislative Department including Member-Secretary, Law Commission of India or held a post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and Legislative Department at least for a period of five years.

3. Even after the amendment in 2007, the qualification for those to be appointed from among the members of the Bar or from among the Judicial Officers continues to be the same; that is he should be or should be qualified to be a Judge of the High Court. In other words, for appointment as a Judicial Member of an Administrative Tribunal and for the appointment as a Judge of a High Court, from among members of the Bar, one should have not less than 10 years' practice as an Advocate. Under Section 8 of the Act, the term of appointment of a Member is for 5 years which can be extended by another 5 years, provided no member can continue beyond the age of 62 years. By Act 1 of 2007, subsection 3 was added to Section 8 by which the conditions of service of the Chairman and Members were made as applicable to the Judges of the High Court. Section 10 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make rules governing the conditions of service including pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members of the Administrative Tribunals. Government framed the Central Administrative Tribunal (salaries and allowances and conditions of service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 1985 Rules' for short). Rule 8 which deals with pension read as follows:

“8. Pension:- (1) Every person appointed to the Tribunal as the Chairman, a Vice-Chairman or a Member shall be entitled to pension provided that no such pension shall be payable:

(i) if he has put in less than two years of service;

(ii) if he has been removed from an office in the Tribunal under sub-section (2) of Sec.9 of the Act.

(2) Pension under sub-rule (1) shall be calculated at the rate of rupees