Supreme Court Upholds Tripura HC Order That Directed State Govt To Pay Remuneration To Retired Judge Who Served As Chairman Of NSA Advisory Board

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the order of the Tripura High Court that directed the State Government to pay former judge of the Gauhati High Court, Justice Alok Baran Pal who retired as the Chairman of the National Security Advisory Board to be paid remuneration at the rate of the salary of a High Court judge minus the pension during the period he held the sole post as Chairman of the Board. 

A division bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh, however, made it clear that the same must be not treated as a precedent for any other case.

“..keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances in this case and not treating the same as a precedent for any other case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.” the Court specified in its order.

The case of the retired judge was that although he served as the Chairman of the NSA Advisory Board from 01.07.2008 to 30.11.2018, he did not receive any payment for this role. This was because during the same period, he also held the position of President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission starting from 21.07.2008. After his term as President ended on 15.07.2011, he assumed the role of Chairman of the Police Accountability Commission from 16.07.2011 to 31.01.2016. Throughout this period from 01.07.2008 to 31.01.2016, he concurrently held two positions and was compensated for his duties as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and later as Chairman of the Police Accountability Commission.

From 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018 the retired Justice held the sole position of Chairman of the NSA Advisory Board, and during this time, he did not receive any remuneration for his service in that capacity. Hence, he had approached the High Court seeking a direction to grant him the pay of High Court Judges Salary reduced by pension plus other allowances, for the period 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018 when he was NSA Chairman.

It was argued on behalf of Justice Pal before the High Court that the State Government arbitrarily fixed a remuneration of Rs.5,000/- per month without considering the fact that Justice (Retired) M.L. Singhal, who was similarly situated as him, was being paid at a much higher rate.

The State defended its decision stating that he never raised any claim for remuneration as Chairman of the Board for the period from 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018. He only raised such a grievance after the Board was reconstituted excluding him as the Chairman, the state had argued before the High Court.

A single bench of the Tripura High Court allowed his plea and directed that he be paid the remuneration at the rate of salary of a High Court Judge minus the pension for the period from 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018 with other benefits as enjoyed by Justice (Retired) M.L. Singhal as the Chairman of the Board.

The State appealed against the order before a division bench, which upheld the order of the single bench. The High Court held the action of the State to be ‘demeaning’ and discriminatory.

“Even though there is no provision in the Act and also there is no rule or other instrument prescribing any remuneration for the Chairman of the NSA Advisory Board, denial of the claim of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) would amount to an apparent discrimination between the similarly situated persons who have held the same position of Chairman, NSA Advisory Board. Decision of the State Government to pay honorarium at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of the concept of equality. The petitioner is unquestionably entitled to pay parity with Justice (Retired) M.L. Singhal who held the same position and entrusted with similar duties and responsibilities. Claim of the State appellants that the original writ petitioner cannot claim parity with the case of Justice (Retired) M.L. Singhal does not stand to reason.”

The State then appealed against the order of the division bench by approaching the Apex Court. The Apex Court while upholding the order stated that the comments of the High Court against the State must not be seen as a reflection of the government.

“However, we make it clear any of the adverse comments made by the High Court in the course of the orders impugned shall not be held to be a reflection on the Government and shall not be treated as adverse.” The Apex Court stated in its order.

Case Title: State of Tripura V. Justice (Retd.) Alok Baran Pal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 34826/2022

Citation  : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 557

Click Here To Read/Download Order