Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suresh Chandra Goyal vs State Of Raj & Ors on 30 March, 2012
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER DB Civil Writ Petition No.15649/2010 Suresh Chandra Goyal versus State of Rajasthan & ors Date of Order : March 30, 2012. PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Satish Chandra Mittal for petitioner Mr Inderjeet Singh Ms Sunita Satyarthi, Addl GC for respondents BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble M.N.Bhandari,J.):
By this writ petition, a direction is sought to fix pension at 50% of the pay scale one get on second Advanced Career Progression II (for short 'the ACP') for Rajasthan Judicial Service w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
The petitioner was a member of Rajasthan Judicial Service and on completion of 20 years of service, he sought voluntary retirement in the month of September, 1990. At the time of retirement, petitioner was drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 in the ordinary scale of RJS. Petitioner's pension was fixed by treating his service tenure of 25 years as 5 years' benefit was given for computation of qualifying period. At the time of retirement, only one pay scale was existing at the entry level of RJS, however, with the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission, which is popularly known as Shetty Commission, three pay scales were introduced for RJS. It is Entry Level, ACP-I and ACP-II. The ACP-I and ACP-II were made admissible on completion of 5 and 10 years of service respectively. The Government of Rajasthan issued an order on 7.5.2003 to provide three pay scales for RJS at initial level. This was pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association versus Union of India, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247.
Petitioner's case is that having completed 20 years of service prior to retirement, he became entitled for grant of ACP-I and ACP-II. If benefit of ACP-I and ACP-II is granted then petitioner would be entitled to get revised pension at 50% of the pay scale of ACP-II. This is more so when revision in the pay scale was made effective since 1.1.1996 yet petitioner is getting pension on pre-revised pay scale.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to revised pension by calculating it at the pay scale for ACP-II as the order dated 7.11.2010 at Annexure-5 was made effective for those retired prior to 1.1.1996. The Notification dated 7.5.2003 at Annexure-3 also provides for fixation of pay in revised pay scale for those working prior to 1.7.1996. Reference of the order dated 18.5.2005 at Annexure-R/2/1 has also been given wherein pay structure for pensioners retired prior to 1.7.1996 has been given. It is provided therein that consolidated revised pension would not be less than 50% of the minimum of revised pay of the post held by the Judicial officer at the time of retirement. The respondents were under an obligation to revise pay scale of the petitioner and then to fix his pension. The post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) ordinary scale is bifurcated in three pay scales vide order at Annexure-R/2/2, which is first at entry level, Ist stage ACP scale and IInd stage ACP scale. It is accordingly prayed that petitioner's pay scale should be taken as Rs.12850-17750 w.e.f. 1.7.1996 and pay scale of Rs.39530-54010 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for revision in pension.
Learned counsel for respondents contested the matter. The petitioner is not entitled to revision in the pay scale as three different pay scales were made admissible w.e.f. 1.7.1996 as is clearly coming out from Annexure-3 Notification dated 7.5.2003. Petitioner sought voluntary retirement in the month of September, 1990. The benefit of ACP-I and ACP-II is given to those who were member of service and not for those retired prior to 1.7.1996. The Notification at Annexure-3 makes a reference of existing members of Rajasthan Judicial Service working prior to 1.7.1996. Petitioner cannot be said to be an existing member of RJS as on 1.7.1996. The Notification at Annexure-3 and subsequent Notifications/ circulars were not made applicable to those retired prior to 1.7.1996. The petitioner retired in the month of September, 1990 thus the pay scale as existing then was taken into consideration for determination of pensionary benefits. The order dated 7.1.2010 makes a reference of the cut off date as on 1.1.1996 for revision of pension and aforesaid order is in reference to the earlier order dated 18.5.2005 as amended on 10.4.2006 and 27.1.2009. The benefit of ACP was not admissible to those retired prior to 1.7.1996. The order dated 18.5.2005 makes a mention about pension structure of pensioners retired prior to 1.7.1996, however, it does not make a mention about grant of ACP for the purpose of fixing pension at 50% of the minimum revised pay scale hence, revision in pay scale was extended based on the pay scale one was getting at the time of retirement. To clarify the aforesaid, a judicial officer retired from ordinary scale then revised pay scale at the entry level was taken into consideration. In the same way, if subsequent to 1.7.1996, one retired after getting the benefit of ACP-I then revision of pension was made accordingly and, lastly, if one retired after getting benefit of ACP-II, the revision of pension was on the pay scale of ACP-II. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of ACP-I and ACP-II. This is more so when benefit of ACP-I is not automatic but on the recommendation of High Court on completion of satisfactory and continuous service of 5 years and same way, the benefit of ACP-II is admissible on same consideration. The aforesaid is coming out from bare perusal of Annexure-3 itself.
We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is a case where petitioner voluntarily retired from service in the month of September, 1990 and much subsequent to his retirement, a Notification was issued by the State of Rajasthan on 7.5.2003 revising pay scale of RJS cadre pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association versus Union of India. Three pay scales were provided for Civil Judge (Junior Division) i.e. at entry level then ACP-I and lastly ACP-II. The para 1.1 of the Notification provides that on completion of five years satisfactory and continuous service, if one is found suitable by the High Court then benefit of ACP-I would be made admissible and, same way, after completion of another five years, similar exercise is to be taken for ACP-II. In the aforesaid background, benefit of higher pay scale known as ACP-I and ACP-II are not automatic but on recommendations of the High Court. The petitioner's claim for grant of benefit of ACP-I and ACP-II cannot be accepted unless so recommended by the High Court in his favour.
This is apart from the fact that petitioner retired much prior to issuance of Notification dated 7.5.2003 which has been made effective from 1.7.1996. In the aforesaid background, Notification dated 7.5.2003 is wrongly treated as applicable on the petitioner for revision of pension. The petitioner has misinterpreted certain clauses of the Notification dated 7.5.2003 treating revision of pay scale to be applicable to the officer retired prior to 1.7.1996. The Notification was issued in the year 2003 i.e. much after the cut off date of 1.7.1996 thus in subsequent references, it was mentioned that those appointed and working prior to 1.7.1996 would be eligible to the revision in the pay scale. It was only for revision of pay scale and not for grant of benefit of ACP-I and ACP-II. The claim of the petitioner to grant revised pension corresponding to pay scale of ACP-II cannot be accepted because those who retired prior to 1.7.1996 or to say 1.1.1996 are not covered by the notification of the year 2003.
The benefit of different level of pay scale was made admissible w.e.f. 1.7.1996. It was given to those who were in service, that too, benefit of ACP-I and ACP-II was admissible on the recommendation of the High Court which is missing herein.
In view of the discussion made above, petitioner is not entitled to the revised pension of the pay scale of ACP-II. The claim so made in the writ petition is found devoid of merit hence, it is dismissed.
(MN BHANDARI), J. (AJAY RASTOGI), J. bnsharma
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW