Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 2784
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saumitra Dayal Singh, Donadi Ramesh, JJ
Vinod Chandra Misra – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
WRIT - A No. 7743 of 2019
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Pension and Retirement Benefits
Act Referred
Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011: R.4(5), R.5, R.14
High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: S.2(g), S.17A
High Court Judges Rules, 1956: R.2
All India Services (Death-cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Family Pension - Entitlement to family pension - Even where specific provision is absent, legislation by reference to judicial service rules includes family pension as a component of retirement benefits - Denial of such entitlement by state authorities is unsustainable. (Paras 14, 23, 24)
(C) Interest on Delayed Pension - Statutory entitlement - Interest as compensation for loss of time - Where there is no valid legal impediment or conduct on the part of an employee causing delay in the disbursement of statutory dues, the authority is obligated to compensate for the delayed payment of pensionary benefits. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former high-ranking judicial official who served as the chair of a statutory legal body, challenged the refusal of payment of interest on delayed pension arrears and the denial of family pension entitlement to his spouse. The state maintained that the governing rules did not contain express provisions for family pension or specific qualifying service periods for such benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the rules governing the service conditions of the chairperson adopted the provisions of the high court judicial services legislation by reference. Therefore, the definition of 'pension' in the incorporated legislation, which includes family pension, remains applicable. Furthermore, the court found the state's denial of interest on delayed pension payments unjustified as the right to pension is a statutory right, and the delay was not attributable to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the spouse of a retired chairperson of a statutory commission is entitled to family pension under the principle of legislation by reference, and whether the official is entitled to interest on delayed pension arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: Legislation by incorporation means provisions from an earlier Act are read as if they were written into the later Act. As the definition of 'pension' in the incorporated judicial legislation includes 'family pension', it cannot be excluded by the secondary legislation. Moreover, delayed payment of statutory pension benefits without legal justification entitles the beneficiary to reasonable interest, serving as compensation for the deprivation of funds.
Result: Petition allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prakash Chandra Shukla, V.K. Singh
For the Respondents: Kritika Singh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. statutory basis and factual history regarding pension entitlement for the chairperson of the u.p. state law commission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the entitlement to interest on delayed pension and the inclusion of family pension via legislative reference. (Para 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. judicial interpretation of pension as a statutory right and the application of legislative incorporation principles to interpreting service conditions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. the principle that legislative reference incorporates family pension as part of the total pension entitlement for the chairperson, overriding restrictive general state rules. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. final direction for payment of interest on arrears and affirmative recognition of the spouse's right to future family pension. (Para 42 , 43) |
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 Chiet 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
