JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer:

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-9) issued by Respondent No.1, being illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of their constitutional rights and further directing the respondents to pay the petitioners the full salary and arrears due during their tenure as Lokayukta, Haryana, at par with a Judge of the High Court without deduction of pension, along with interest @12% from the date of assumption of office, and to ensure full pensionary benefits as Lokayukta in accordance with law.

The conspectus of Facts:

2. The petitioners are former Judges of this Court. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Lokayukta for the State of Haryana under the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002 (in short as “2002 Act”), vide warrant of appointment dated 13.01.2006 and assumed charge on 16.01.2006. Petitioner No.2 was similarly appointed vide warrant dated 19.01.2011 and assumed charge on the same day, each for a fixed tenure of five years. At the time of their appointment, both petitioners were drawing pension as retired High Court Judges.

3. Under Section 6(4) and (5) of the Act of 2002, the salary, allowances and conditions of service of the Lokayukta are prescribed to be the same as those of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice/Judge of a High Court, as the case may be, and such conditions cannot be varied to the disadvantage of the incumbent after appointment. However, while disbursing salary to the petitioners as Lokayuktas, the respondent-State deducted the pension being drawn by them as retired Judges.

4. Aggrieved by the deduction of pension from their salary, the petitioners submitted a joint representation dated 29.07.2021, which remained undecided, compelling them to approach this Court in CWP No.11214 of 2022. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.05.2022 with a direction to decide the representation within a stipulated period. Thereafter, the respondent-State passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioners, giving rise to the present writ petition.

Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner:

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that under Section 6(4) and (5) of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002, the Lokayukta is entitled to salary and allowances at par with a sitting Judge of the High Court and that such conditions cannot be varied to his disadvantage after appointment. The Act does not provide for deduction or adjustment of pension while fixing such salary.

6. It was submitted that pension drawn by the petitioners as retired High Court Judges is a vested right earned for past constitutional service and has no nexus with the remuneration payable for services rendered as Lokayukta. In the absence of any statutory provision permitting such deduction, the impugned action of the respondents is illegal.

7. Learned counsel further contended that reliance placed by the respondents on constitutional provisions applicable to serving Judges is misconceived, as appointment as a High Court Judge is not a service under the State. Denial of full salary without deduction of pension, particularly when similarly situated persons have been granted such benefit, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

On behalf of the respondent

8. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the salary payable to the petitioners as Lokayuktas was correctly fixed after adjusting the pension drawn by them as retired High Court Judges, in accordance with the applicable constitutional provisions and principles governing payment of remuneration to former Judges. It was submitted that the petitioners could not be permitted to draw full salary equivalent to a sitting Judge in addition to pension, as such payment would amount to double benefit from the public exchequer.

9. It was further contended that the