Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
W.A.SHISHAK,K.C.SOOD
P.N.NAG - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
CWP No. 78 of 2000
Decided On : 09/27/2002
The petitioner, a retired Judge of the High Court, was appointed as President of the State Consumer Commission. The salary of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts was revised w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The salary of the Lokayukta and the Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was also revised to bring it at par with the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court and Judges of the High Court, respectively. However, the petitioner was not given the benefit of the revision of the salary. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Judge of the High Court, was appointed as President of the State Consumer Commission. The salary of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts was revised w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The salary of the Lokayukta and the Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was also revised to bring it at par with the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court and Judges of the High Court, respectively. However, the petitioner was not given the benefit of the revision of the salary. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the revision of the salary w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The court also held that the respondents should consider the amendment of Rule 13 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 providing for honorarium and other allowances to the President and Members of the State Commission in pari materia to Rule 11 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed by the Central Government in respect of salaries, honorarium and other allowances to the President and Members of the National Commission so as to avoid any dispute or amendment in future so far the salaries, honorarium and allowances of the President and Members of the State Commission are concerned.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the revision of the salary w.e.f. January 1, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the revision of the salary w.e.f. January 1, 1996. The court relied on the following principles: * The President of the State Commission is a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court and is appointed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. * The salary of the President of the State Commission is determined by the State Government in accordance with the rules framed by the Central Government. * The salary of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts was revised w.e.f. January 1, 1996. * The salary of the Lokayukta and the Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was also revised to bring it at par with the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court and Judges of the High Court, respectively. * The petitioner was not given the benefit of the revision of the salary.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of benefit of the revised salary w.e.f. July 9, 1996, the date of appointment of the petitioner as President of the Consumer Commission till March 4, 2002 when he laid down the office in the light of the observations made herein above and release the consequential financial benefits accruing to him on account of salary, allowances, perquisites, travelling allowances etc., payable to him within six weeks from today.
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.:—Justice P.N. Nag (Retd.), is the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed permanent Judge of the High Court of Delhi on October 12, 1988. He was transferred to Allahabad High Court on March 4, 1995. Justice Nag (Retd.) was appointed President of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Despites Redressal Commission, under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("Consumer Act" for short) by a notification of the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated July 9,1996 (Annexure PI) on the terms and conditions set out in the notification. One of the conditions was that Justice Nag shall be entitled to salary and allowances and other perquisites as per available to him as Judge of the High Court (last pay drawn minus pension). He was also entitled to increase in dearness allowance on account of the revision from time to time. However, no interim relief or relief in pension was payable to him during his tenure as President of the State Commission.
2. The petitioner was allowed salary of rupees 8,000 per month, salary drawn by him as Judge of the High Court, minus pension, as President of the State Commission.
3. By an amendment of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance No. 11 of 1998, promulgated on April 24, 1998, the salary of the Judges of the High Courts was revised to rupees 26,000 per month with effect from January 1,1996. This Ordinance was later on replaced by an amendment Act No. 18 of 1998.
4. The petitioner represented to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the revision of his salary as President of the Commission on March 18, 1999 (Annexure-P4) and April 17, 1999 (Annexure-P5) for the revision of his salary so as to bring it at par with that of Judges of the High Court. The representations did not evoke any response.
5. Dis-satisfied, the petitioner is in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. The case of Justice Nag (Retd.) is : (a) When the petitioner was appointed President of the State Commission on July 9, 1996, the salary of the Judges of the High Court had not been revised. It was revised only when Ordinance, amending the High Court and Supreme Court (Conditions of Service) Act promulgated on July 24, 1998. The revision in the salary of the Judges was given effect from January 1, 1996. The stipulation in the notification of the appointment of the petitioner as President of the Commission providing for the salary of rupees 8,000, p.m., then admissible to a Judge of the High Court was not intended to mean that the petitioner would continue to draw the unrevised salary of a Judge of the High Court pegged at rupees 8,000 irrespective of its future revision. (b) The State Government, in fact, responding to the revision of pay of the Judges of the High Court, amended H.P. Lokayukta Act in the year 1998 so as to bring the salary of the Lokayukta of H.P. at par with the Chief Justice of the High Court as the post of Lokayukta H.P. was manned by a retired Chief Justice of the High Court at the relevant time. It is the case of the petitioner that Justice PC. Balakrishna Menon (retired), a former Chief Justice of this High Court, held the office of Lokayukta from February 2,1994 and laid down his office on December 19,1998. The Lokayukta Act was amended to enable the Lokayukta, Mr. Justice PC. Balakrishna Menon, to draw the revised salary as payable to a Chief Justice of a High Court from January 1, 1996. (c) The Government of India also in view of the revision of salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, amended the H.P. Administrative Tribunals (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman and Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1986 so as to enable the Chairman of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal to draw revised salary of the Judge of the High Court w.e.f. January 1.1.1996. (d) At the relevant time, Mr. Justice D.P. Sood (Retd.) was the Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal who
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
