48,000 per annum had number been accepted, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the ceiling of Rs.
Provided that the pension under clause a and additional pension under clause b together shall in numbercase exceed Rs.54,000 per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs.
Judges in High Court are recruited from three sources a from the Bar Members belonging to the former Indian Civil Service and Officers of the State Judicial Service.
In respect of such a Judge the pension payable is prescribed to be a the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules of his service if he had number been appointed a Judge, his service as a Judge being treated as service therein for the purpose of calculating that pension and b a special additional pension or Rs.1,600 per annum in respect of each companypleted year of service for pension,but in numbercase such additional pension together with the additional or special pension, if any, to which he is entitled under the ordinary rule of his service exceed Rs.8,000 per annum.
48,000 per annum in case of any other Judge.
18044/88 asking for benefits under the Amending Act.
In the meantime, certain changes in the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act,1954, were brought about, firstly, by Central Act 38/86 and again by Central Act 20/88.
The petitioner has number applied to this Court challenging the ceiling on additional pension appearing in clause b of paragraph 2 of Part III of the first Schedule to the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act of 1954.
8,000.
46,100 per annum with effect from November 1,1986, keeping the two amendments referred to above in view 1988 4 SCC 121 .
Petitioner applied to this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
This Court by its decision on August 18, 1988, refixed petitioners pension at Rs.
The First Schedule Deals with pension of Judges.
The companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Law and Justice sought to justify the limit by referring to cases of Central Civil Service Officers retiring as Secretaries to Government where full credit was number being given for the entire period of service rendered and aceiling was fixed.
In paragraph 19 of this Courts order, it was stated We refrain from expressing any opinion as to the effect of lifting of the ceiling on the special additional pension at Rs.
46,100 and petitioners claim for being put at par with other Judges by fixing his pension at Rs.
Since this Court had fixed the pension at Rs.
According to the petitioner, he had put in nine years of companypleted service as a Judge and on the basis of the provision for special additional pension of Rs.
1,600 per annum in respect of each companypleted year of service for pension he was entitled to Rs.14,400 but the limit in the proviso would have the effect of fixing ceiling at Rs.
A dispute relating to his pension became the subject matter of a writ petition before this Court and was disposed of on April 9, 1985 1985 2 SCC 355 .
1 of 1989.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Interlocutory Application No.
41,600 per annum with effect from January 1, 1986, and at Rs.
8,000 per annum placed by clause b of paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
16093 of 1984 etc.
M. Jain, S.K. Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain and Pradeep Agarwal for the petitioner.
21,500 per annum.
He was transferred to the Delhi High Court from where he retired on July 21, 1984.
Arun Jaitly, Additional Solicitor General, Kailash Vasdev and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered Petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and was elevated as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on July 1, 1975.
This Court fixed his pension at Rs.
