January, 1.
November 1,1986 in place of the pension s. 21,500 as ealiear directed In view of the impoance of the question involved, we requested Sri K Parasaran, learned Attorney General to assist the Court.
They had put lesser periods of total service as well as service as High Court Judges.
November 1, 1986 in place of the pension of Rs.
We number only found the companytentions of the petitioner to have force but also to be irrefutable ones.
26,000 per annum, the very same authority had fixed the pension of Shri J.D. Jain at Rs.46,340 and that of Shri D.R. Khanna at Rs.44,684 per annum who had also retired as Judges of the Delhi High Court.
According to the petitioner, in view of the change in law, the amount of pension payable to him has to be re calculated and re determined at Rs.41,600 per annum w.e.f.
When the PG NO 499 petitioner was appointed as a Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan on July 1, 1975, he was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service having been a District Sessions Judge for the period from November 9, 1970 to July 1, 1975.
While the Pay Accounts Officer has fixed the pension of the petitioner at Rs.
January 1, 1986 which amount has to be further inceases to Rs.
Shri D. Jain had put in judicial service for a period of 35 PG NO 505 years, 7 months and 19 days including 6 years 5 months and 2 days as a Judge of the Delhi High Court.
he question hat falls of determination in this order is whether companysequent upon the improvement of the service companyditions including pension and other benefits by the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Amendment Acts, 1986 and 1988 and pursuant to the office Memoranda issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances Pensions, Department of Pensions Pensioners welfare dated April 14, 1987 and April 16, 1987 the pension of the petitioner Shri M.L. Jain has o be re calculated and e determined at s. 41,600 per annum w.e.f.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
Parasaran, Solicitor General, Kuldip Singh.
1986 which amount has to be further increased to Rs.46,100 per annum w.e.f.
46,100 pew annum w.e.f.
IN Writ Petition No.
including 9 years and 21 days as a Judge of the High Court.
21,500 as earlier directed.
Additional Solicitor Genera1 and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
18044 of 1980.
The facts are uncontroverted.
The petitioner has had a long and distinguished career in judicial service extending over a period of 38 years and 9 months.
To bring out more forcefully how the governmental action is patently arbitrary and as to how he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment without there being any justifiable basis for it the petitioner brought to our numberice the higher rates of pension the Pay Accounts Officer had fixed for some other Judges of the Delhi High Court even though their overall period of service and their tenure of office as a Judge of the High Court was lesser than his.
On July 23, 1978 the petitioner was transferred as a Judge of the High Court of Delhi under Art.
The following Order of the Court was delivered O R D E R This is an application by Shri M.L. Jain, retired Judge of the Delhi Court questioning the companystitutional propriety and legality of the order issued by the Pay Accounts PG NO 498 Officer, Delhi Administrative High Court Miscellaneous , New Delhi dated July 12 1938 purporting to fix his pension at Rs.26,000 per annum and for an appropriate direction for re determination of his pension and other pensionary benefits in view of the change in law brought about by High Court Judges Conditions of Service Amendment Acts, 1996 and 1988 Act Nos.
38 of 1986 and 20 Of 1986 .
