1998 Supreme(Raj) 1068
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.C.Verma, J.
Mohini Kapur (Smt.) - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6215 of 1996.
Decided On : 22-04-1998
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prahlad Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. B.P. Agarwal, Advocate with Mr. J.M. Jain, Advocate.
For the Union of India:Bhanwar Bagri, Advocate.
High Court Judges who retired on or after 1.4.1995 are entitled to the revised gratuity as per the letter dated 14.7.1995 issued by the Government of India.
Headnote:
GRATUITY - REVISED GRATUITY - HIGH COURT JUDGES - ENTITLEMENT - RETIREMENT GRATUITY - COMPUTATION - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1972 - APPLICABILITY - HIGH COURT JUDGES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT, 1954 - PART III OF FIRST SCHEDULE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, filed a writ petition seeking payment of the difference of gratuity by computing her pensionary benefits as per the revision by the Government of India. The petitioner was elevated to the Judgeship of the High Court in 1985 and retired in 1995. She was paid a gratuity of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Government of India, vide letter dated 14.7.1995, had treated Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for the purpose of death gratuity and retirement gratuity and raised the maximum limit of gratuity from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner applied for the benefit of the revised gratuity, but the respondents informed her that the State Government had adopted the letter dated 14.9.1995 w.e.f. 1.4.1996 instead of 1.4.1995 and, therefore, she was not entitled to the enhanced gratuity.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the revised gratuity from 1.4.1995 as per the letter dated 14.7.1995 issued by the Government of India. The court observed that the letter was applicable to all High Court Judges who retired on or after 1.4.1995 and that the State Government was under an obligation to adopt the letter and pay the revised gratuity to the petitioner. The court also held that the respondents had failed to interpret the relevant letters correctly and had compelled the petitioner to approach the court for enforcement of her right.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the revised gratuity from 1.4.1995 as per the letter dated 14.7.1995 issued by the Government of India? 2. Whether the State Government was under an obligation to adopt the letter and pay the revised gratuity to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the letter dated 14.7.1995 issued by the Government of India, which clearly stated that the revised gratuity was applicable to all High Court Judges who retired on or after 1.4.1995. 2. The court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.L. Jain v. Union of India, wherein it was held that liberty given to the States for fixing different dates for sanction of revised pension of High Court Judges would be constitutionally impermissible as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The court further relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in G.K. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that all High Court Judges throughout the country who are governed by Part III of First Schedule of the Act on their retirement are entitled to equal amount of gratuity and other pensionary benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed with costs. The court directed the respondents to recompute the petitioner's gratuity within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The petitioner was also entitled to interest on the remaining un-paid amount at the rate of 12% p.a. to be calculated from the date of retirement till payment.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner is a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and has filed the present writ petition against the State of Rajasthan and Union of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ order to pay the petitioner the difference of gratuity by computing her pensionary benefits as per revision by Government of India vide letter dated 14.7.1995. She has claimed the difference of Rs. 1,15,160/- with interest and costs.
2. The petitioner was elevated to the Judgeship of High Court on 13th July, 1985 from the service i.e. from the quota of District and Sessions Judges. She had retired on superannuation on 17th November, 1995. She was sanctioned and paid the gratuity amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3. Government of India vide letter dated 14.11.1995 had treated the Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for the purpose of death gratuity and retirement gratuity and maximum limit of gratuity was raised from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. The letter was effective from 1.4.1995. There was a mention in the letter that even those persons who had already retired or died on or after 1.4.1995 shall also entitled to the benefit of the letter dated 14.7.1995. The commutation as to be done by the department concerned. Letter dated 14.7.1995 has been attached for record as Annexure 3. In furtherance to Annexure 3 another letter dated 14.9.1995 was issued by the Government of India, DOP and Training, New Delhi to the Chief Secretaries of all States, Annexure 4 to the effect that the benefit of the letter of July 1995 Annexure 3 shall stand extended to all the personnels of All India Service and still by another letter dated 10.11.1995, copy of which has been attached as Annexure 6, the Government of India had taken a decision that the death/retirement gratuity was to be calculated from 1.4.1995 onwards after treating 63% of the Dearness Allowance subject to minimum of Rs. 4,380/- p.m. and maximum to Rs. 2.50 lacs. It was further mentioned that in case of the High/Supreme Court Judges retiring under Part III of the First Schedule/Schedule to the High/Supreme Court Judges (C/S) Act, 1954/58, the gratuity was to be calculated w.e.f. 1.4.1995, and the Judges shall be entitled to the benefit as per letter dated 14.7.1995, copy of which has been attached as Annexure 3, if the concerned State Government adopts the said letter in respect of its employees including the members of State Higher Judicial Service, and from the date from which the concerned State Government has adopted it and the States were requested to review/revise the gratuity to be paid to the High Court/Supreme Court Judges. The petitioner did apply to the concerned authorities for payment of the benefit arising out of letter Annexure 3, 4 and 6. The petitioner was informed vide Annexure 8 that the Department had already adopted the letter dated 14.9.1995 about the treatment of Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for the purpose of death/retirement gratuity and raising of limit of gratuity to Rs. 2.50 lacs in respect of Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court. The Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had informed the Finance Department of the State of Rajasthan of the legal position with the request and said Justice Mohini Kapur was entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,15,160/- out of which Rs. 1.00,000/- had already been paid.
4. Reply hs been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 i.e. the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that the State Government was under no legal obligation to adopt the said letter Annexure 1, 4 and 6 and if the letter was adopted the petitioner was entitled to gratuity from the date of adoption. It is submitted that the letter was adopted w.e.f. 1.4.1996 instead of 1.4.1995 and, therefore, no benefit could have accrued to any Hon'ble Judge who had retired or working in between the period from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1996 and, therefore, no Judge was entitled for the enhanced limit or gratuity.
5.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
