Family Pension Under High Court Judges Act Applicable To Chairperson Of State Law Commission: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that “family pension” rules under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder will be applicable to the pension awarded to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission under the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that though the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010 and the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011 did not specifically provide for 'Family pension' for the Chairperson, the Legislature had read in the Judges Act of 1954 for the purpose of the same.

The Court held that “though the Act and the Rules do not make a specific/ direct provision for payment of 'family pension', at the same time provision of Rule 4(5) of the Rules. It clearly provides that the pension admissible to a Chairperson shall be equivalent to the pension admissible to the Chief Justice of a High Court under the Judges Act read with the Judges Rules. Therefore, it is not open to the State-respondent to contend that for the purpose of examination of entitlement to pension we may look at the Judges Act and the Judges Rules but for determining the entitlement to 'family pension', we may not look at the Judges Act or the Judges Rules.”

While granting interest on delayed payment of higher pension, the Court held that,

“Payment of pension is a statutory right arising from services rendered. That right existed from before. Since there was no conduct offered by the petitioner as may have delayed the computation and payment of higher pension to which he was entitled and since there never existed any legal impediment or doubt in that payment, we find the stand of the State Government untenable insofar as interest has not been paid on arrears of correct pension computed with delay. The State must compensate for the loss of time in making the due payment.”

Case Background

Petitioner, Justice Vinod Chandra Misra, was a judge of the Allahabad High Court and was later appointed as Chairman of the State Law Commission, Uttar Pradesh. At the time of joining the post of Chairman, the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010 was not in force. However, at the time of Petitioner's retirement in 2012, the Act and Rules were in place and petitioner sought post-retirement allowances in accordance with law.

Since the claim of the petitioner was rejected, he filed a writ petition seeking same pension as that payable to the Chief Justice of the High Court under the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011.

The High Court had ordered the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow to look into the matter and take appropriate action. Pursuant to this order of the High Court, the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh passed an order dated 15.11.2017 accepting that the petitioner is entitled to the same pension as that of the Chief Justice of the High Court but did not award any interest on the arrears of pension. This order rejected the claim of the petitioner that the family pension to be awarded to the spouse, if need be, will be the same as the pension payable to the spouse of a retired Chief Justice.

Petitioner challenged the order dated 15.11.2017 seeking interest on arrears of pension as the though the petitioner retired in 2012, the first pension was given only in 2015.

Further, petitioner sought parity in family pension to that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Reliance was placed on Section 4(5) of the Act read with Rule 4(5) of the Rules read with Section 2(g) and 2(gg) of the Judges Act read with Section 17A of the Judges Act to argue that the spouse of the Chairman of the State Law Commission would remain entitled to family pension as the spouse of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that once the State Government had admitted that pension was to be paid to the petitioner, there was no reason for withholding interest on the same. It was that the delay in computation of higher pension was not attributable to the petitioner, he must be compensated for the delay caused by the State.

Regarding the 'family pension', the Court observed that once Rule 4(5) of 2011 Rules provided that pension to the Chairperson was equivalent to the pension for the Chief Justice of a High Court under the Judges Act read with the Judges Rule, the State could not contend that for family pension the Rules could not be considered.

“That reasoning would be self conflicted. Once the State admits, that for the purpose of pension payable to the petitioner the Judges Act and the Judges Rules are applicable and therefore the petitioner is entitled to higher pension equivalent to that payable to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, there is no inherent reason or logic to not read the Judges Act and the Judges Rules for the purpose of determining the entitlement to 'family pension'.”

The Court held that Section 2(gg) of the Judges Acts contemplates “pension of any kind” including 'family pension'. It was held that if 'family pension' was to be specifically excluded from the ambit of the Judges Act, then amount payable after the death of the retired judge would not have been included in the provision.

“if the 'family pension' were to be excluded from the scope of the definition of the term 'pension' under Section 2(gg) of the Act and 'pension' were to be restricted to any amount payable to a retired Judge during his lifetime alone and if it were to be read to exclude any amount payable thereafter, the words "of any kind", "in respect of a Judge" and the words "other sum or sums" payable by way of death appearing in that definition clause would be rendered otiose.”

The Court held that interpretation of statues must not be done to render the provisions otiose/meaningless. It was held that “natural meanings” of the words must be given full effect unless the context specifically provides otherwise. Further, the Court noted that Section 17A of the Judges Act specifically provided for family pension.

It was held that since Rule 4(5) of the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011 provides that pension of Chairperson shall be equivalent' to the pension which would be admissible to the Chief Justice of a High Court under the Judges Act and Rules, 'family pension' will be payable to the Chairperson's spouse equivalent to that of a Retired Chief Justice's spouse.

“Thus in our view, in the first place 'pension' payable to a Chairperson of a State of Law Commission necessarily includes within it the 'family pension' that may become payable to the spouse of such Chairperson, if that contingency arises. Alternatively, even if 'family pension' were not included in the term 'pension' payable to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission, that entitlement would arise by virtue of Rule 14 of the Rules read with the Judges Act and the Judges Rules.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner was liable to be receiving higher pension since after reinterment as a High Court Judge, he retired as a Chairperson of the State Law Commission. It was held that the spouse of the retired Chairperson was also entitled to family pension. The Court provided 8% interest on the delayed computation and payment of the higher pension to the petitioner.

Case Title: Justice Vinod Chandra Misra v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7743 of 2019]

Click Here To Read/Download Order