Important Points:
" In the case of applicability of the judgment in Ramakrishnam Raju`s case when all the High Court Judges are eligible to get their pension fixed from 1.4.2004, it cannot be said that that benefit cannot be extended in the case of the petitioner just because he happened to be appointed before 19.2.2007. The cut off date fixed for the purpose of the extension of the benefit of the judgment is therefore unreasonable and arbitrary.
" A Member appointed before the commencement of the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder as unamended. That it is so as if the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 had not come into force is explicit from Section 10A of the Act itself repelling any retrospective operation.

Chitambaresh, J.

1. The respondent who had served as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) during the period from 10.7.1989 to 9.7.1994 claims retiral benefits as applicable to the Judges of the High Court. The benefits were governed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Members) Rules, 1985(Rules). Rule 8 of the Rules quantifies the pension 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; or

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

(2) Pension under sub-rule (1) shall be calculated at the rate of rupees forty thousand eight hundred and thirty six per annum for each completed year of service:

Provided that the aggregate amount of pension payable under this rule together with amount of any pension including commuted portion of pension if any drawn or entitled to be drawn while holding office in the Tribunal shall not exceed the maximum amount of pension prescribed for a Judge of the High Court.”

It is not in dispute that the respondent has been drawing pensionary benefits accordingly as revised from time to time by the Union of India in addition to his lucrative practice as a Senior Advocate of the High Court of Kerala.

2. It was by amendment of the Administrative Tribunals Act (Act) by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 that Section 8 thereof amended as regards the terms and conditions of service of Chairman. Section 8 of the Act as amended reads thus:

“8. Term of office.-(1) The Chairman shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:

Provided that no Chairman shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-eight years.

(2) A Member shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office extendable by one more term of five years:

Provided that no Member shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.

(3) The conditions of service of Chairman and Members shall be the same as applicable to Judges of the High Court.”

(emphasis supplied)

The short question is as to whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 8(3) of the Act as amended with effect from 19.2.2007 when his tenure of office as Member of the CAT ended on 9.7.1994.

3. The learned single Judge has by the judgment impugned set aside Ext.P6 order of the Government of India rejecting the request of the respondent for pensionary benefits as applicable to the Judges of the High Court. The learned single Judge has further declared that the respondent would be entitled to add ten years practice as an Advocate as qualifying service for pension. The learned single Judge in so doing has drawn inspiration from the decision in Ramakrishnam Raju P. v. Union of India and others [AIR 2014 SC 1619] pertaining to Judges. The Union of India, Pay and Accounts Officer and the Deputy Registrar of the CAT are in appeal before us assailing the judgment aforesaid as laying down a bad precedent in law.

4. We heard Mr P.Vijayakumar, Assistant Solicitor General of India as well as Mr S.Muhammed Haneef, Advocate for the respondent at length.

5. Section 10A of the Act also inserted by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 saves the terms and conditions of service of the respondent and is a complete answer to the question posed. Section 10A of the Act as amended reads thus:

“10A. Saving terms and conditions of service of Vice-Chairman.- The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Member of a Tribunal appointed before the commencement of the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the Act, and the rules made thereunder