SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Ori) 290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Pradipta Ray, C.R. Pal, JJ.
PRAFULLA KISHORE MOHANTI - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 6207 of 1997
Decided On : 30-09-1999

Advocates Appeared:
S.K. Das, for the Appellant; B.K. Das, Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent

A retired High Court Judge, who is re-employed on a whole-time basis, is entitled to the same pay, allowances, and other benefits which are available to a sitting High Court Judge during the tenure of re-employment.

Headnote:

RETIREMENT BENEFITS - ORISSA STATE COMMISSION FOR BACKWARD CLASSES ACT, 1993 - SECTION 3(1), 3(2), 4(5), 17 - SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES OF CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS - ENTITLEMENT TO SAME BENEFITS AS SITTING HIGH COURT JUDGE - DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT - DIRECTIONS TO PAY OUTSTANDING DUES.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Judge of Orissa High Court, was appointed as Chairperson of the Orissa State Commission for Backward Classes for a term of three years from September 15, 1993. He claimed that he was entitled to the same pay, allowances, and benefits as a sitting High Court Judge, but the State Government did not provide him with all the benefits. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the State Government's decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the State Government had acted illegally, unreasonably, and discriminatorily in not allowing the petitioner to draw the same pay, allowances, and benefits as a sitting High Court Judge. The court directed the State Government to pay the petitioner the outstanding dues, including salary, allowances, and other benefits.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the same pay, allowances, and benefits as a sitting High Court Judge. 2. Whether the State Government's decision to deny the petitioner the full benefits was discriminatory.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * It is a long-standing convention and practice that whenever a retired High Court Judge is re-employed on a whole-time basis, he is entitled to the same pay, allowances, and other benefits which are available to a sitting High Court Judge during the tenure of re-employment. * The State Government is obliged to give a retired High Court Judge, who is re-employed on a whole-time basis, the status, pay, allowances, and other benefits available to a sitting High Court Judge at the relevant points of time, unless the concerned retired Judge expressly agrees to accept any lesser benefit.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to pay the petitioner the outstanding dues, including salary, allowances, and other benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Pradipta Ray, J. - The writ petitioner, a retired Judge of Orissa High Court was appointed Chair-person of the Orissa State Commission for Backward Classes by Notification dated September 9, 1993 for a term of three years from the date of assuming the office. The petitioner assumed the office of Chairperson on September 15, 1993 and his term of office ended on September 14, 1996.

2. The Orissa State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 has been enacted to constitute a State Commission for Backward Classes other than the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe and to provide for matters connected there with or incidental thereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Backward Classes Act"). Section 3(1) authorises the State Government to constitute the Orissa State Commission for Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'). Section 3(2) deals with the composition of the Commission. It has been provided therein that the Commission shall have a Chairperson, who is or has been the Judge of the High Court. Section 4(5) of the Act provides that the salaries and allowances payable to and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and members shall be such as may be prescribed. Section 17 authorises the State Government to make rules by notification for carrying out the provisions the Act including the salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and members under Sub-section (5) of Section 4.

3. After assuming office as Chairperson the Writ-petitioner insisted that the rules relating to the salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and the members should be finalised before the Commission started functioning. It is the uniform convention and practice that if a retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge is appointed to any whole-time 9ffice, such retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge is entitled to all the salaries, allowances and other service benefits available to a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court as the case may be. In consonance with the said principle whenever the pay and allowances of the Judges of the Supreme Court or High Court are revised, the Central Government also issues guidelines prescribing the same pay, allowances and facilities for the retired Judges re-employed on whole-time basis.

4. When the writ petitioner was appointed Chairperson of the Commission in September, 1993 the salary and allowances of a s.erving High Court Judge were those which were revised with effect from January 1, 1986. Basic pay of a High Court puisne Judge was Rs. 8000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) fixed. On the basis of the said revision effected from January 1, 1986 the Central Government issued an office memorandum No. 19048.7.80 - E. IV dated October 8, 1987 (Annexure - 5) revising the previous guidelines and prescribing new terms and conditions of retired Judges re-employed on whole-time basis. It will appear from the said memorandum that same pay, allowances and perks as were applicable to the sitting Judges at the relevant points of time were made available to the retired Judges re-employed on whole-time basis.

5. By the Supreme Court and High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance No. 7/96 sumptuary allowance of the High Court Judges was enhanced from Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three hundred) to Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) per month with effect from January 11, 1996. On April 1, 1995 the Central Government granted interim relief @ 10% of the basic pay to the serving Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court.

6. Pay and allowances of the sitting Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts have been revised by the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1998 with effect from January 1, 1996. The basic pay of a High Court Judge has been raised from Rs. 8000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) (fixed) to Rs. 26,000/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand) (fix




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top