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

2024 Supreme(All) 1429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, DONADI RAMESH, JJ.
Justice Vinod Chandra Misra – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondents
Writ A No.7743 of 2019
Decided on : 16-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Prakash Chandra Shukla, Sri V.K. Singh Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

IMPORTANT POINT
Family pension is included in the definition of pension under the Judges Act, entitling the spouse of a retired Chairperson to claim it.

Headnote:

(A) Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010 - Section 4(5) - High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 - Section 2(gg) and 17A - Claim for pension and family pension - Petitioner, a former Chairperson, entitled to pension equivalent to that of a retired Chief Justice - Family pension included within the definition of pension under the Judges Act - State's denial of family pension to spouse set aside - Interest on delayed pension payment awarded at 8%. (Paras 9, 12, 22, 42)

(B) Pension - Entitlement - Pension is a statutory right arising from services rendered, and interest is payable for delayed payment. (Paras 22, 42)

(C) Family Pension - Definition and entitlement - Family pension is included in the definition of pension under the Judges Act, applicable to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission. (Paras 14, 35, 42)

Facts of the case:

The petitioner, after demitting office as a Judge, served as Chairman of the U.P. Law Commission and claimed pension equivalent to that of a retired Chief Justice. The State sanctioned the pension but denied family pension to the spouse.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the petitioner is entitled to both pension and family pension, with interest on delayed payments.

Issues: The main issues were the entitlement to family pension and the claim for interest on delayed pension payments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that family pension is included in the definition of pension under the Judges Act, and the State's denial was unjustified. The petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payments.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nand Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kritika Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present petition has been filed to assail part of the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh. That order arose on an earlier direction issued by the writ Court in Writ A No.20593 of 2015 decided on 15.04.2015. Therein it was observed as below:-

    "Consequently, in the facts of the case, we proceed to direct the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow to look into the matter and thereafter take appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law, preferably within period of next two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. For the said purpose, Chief Secretary should call all the concerned officials who have a role to play, in the said fixation in question and in respect of other benefits".

3. While dealing with the representation thus filed, the State Government took an informed decision sanctioning pension equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. That decision is based on the own understanding of the State Government- of Section 4(5) of the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

4. For ready reference Section 4(5) of the Act reads as below:-

    "(5) The allowances and pension, if any payable to, and other conditions of service of the Chairperson or a Full-time Member shall be such as may be prescribed:

Provided that in prescribing the salary, allowances and pension payable to and other conditions of service of the Chairperson, regard shall be had to the salary, allowances and pension payable to and other conditions of service, of the Chief Justice of High Court.

Provided further that if the Chairperson or a Full-time Member at the time of his appointment is in receipt of a pension (other than a disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of services as the Chairperson or, a Full-time Member as the case may be, shall be reduced-

(a) by the amount of that pension; and

(b) if he has, before such appointment, received in lieu of a portion of the pension due to him in respect of such previous service the commuted value thereof, by the amount of that portion of the pension; and

(c) if he has, before such appointment, received a retirement gratuity in respect of such previous service, by the pension equivalent of that gratuity:

Provided also that the salary, allowances and pension, if any, payable to, and other conditions of service of the Chairperson or a Full-time Member shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment."

5. Also, Rule 4(5) of the Rules, reads as below:-

    "5. Pension shall be admissible to the Chairperson, equivalent to the pension which would be admissible to the Chief Justice of a High Court under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and relevant Rules including Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956 read with the All India Services (Death-cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, for the period of service rendered as Chairperson, in addition to the pension he may be entitled to, in respect of any previous service under the Central Government or any State Government:

Provided that the pension, payable to the Chairperson under this rule together with the amount of pension, including commuted portion of pension, if any, admissible to him under the Central or State Government prior to his appointment in the Commission shall not exceed rupees forty five thousand per mensum or rupees five lac forty thousand per annum as admissible to t

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