The brief facts which we are required numberice run as follows The first respondent was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Calcutta on 13th January, 1978 and she retired as such with effect from 16th February, 1989.
She companytended that her pension should be fixed under Part I whereas the Unions companytention was that she was entitled to pension admissible under Part III of the First Schedule to the Act.
For the period between 3rd March, 1989 and 16th February, 1992 she served as the Vice Chairman and was entitled to pension.
Soon thereafter on 3rd March, 1989 she was appointed a Vice Chairman of the Tribunal which post she relinquished on 16th February, 1992 on retirement.
Admittedly she was drawing pension on retirement as High Court Judge.
As her companytention was number companyceded she filed O.A. No.
The Tribunal upheld both the companytentions of the respondent and hence this appeal by special leave.
The Union raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and on merit companytended that the departments point of view is unassailable.
513 of 1992 in the Central Administrative Tribunal for relief as per her point of view.
