Honble RAVANI, C.J. – The petitioner is a retired Judge of this High Court. He was elevated to the Bench from bar by warrant issued by the President on July 11,1985. When he retired as Judge of this High Court on attaining the age of 62 years on March 18,1989 he received an amount of commuted pension of Rs. 72,056/- On the commuted value of pension equal to Rs. 7875.00 per annum, the petitioners pension has been fixed at Rs. 15,750/- per annum (Rs. 1312.00 per month). The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to fix equal amount of pension to all the retiring Judges on the basis of principle of one rank one pension and in the alterna- tive, it has been prayed that a minimum pension of the amount of Rs. 15,750.00 per annum (Rs. 1312.00 per Month) fixed is grossly inadequate and it may be held to be illusive and violative of Articles 21 and 221 of the Constitution of India. (2). The petition has been resisted by the respondents. Detailed affidavits in reply have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 3 i.e. Union of India and the Attorney General In India. (3). Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act 1954 (For short the Act) reads as follows :– "14 Pension payable to Judges :– Subject to the provisions of this Act every Judge shall, on his retirement be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in part-I of the First Schedule: Provided that no such pension shall be payable to a Judge unless- (a) he has completed not less than twelve years of service for pension :or (b) he has attained the age of sixty two years ;or (c) his retirement is medically certified to be necessitated by ill health; Provided further that if a Judge at the time of his appointment is in receipt of a pension (other than a disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service in the Union or a State, the pension payable under this Act shall be in lieu of and not in addition to that pension)" (4). Reading the aforesaid provisions together with Part-I of the First Schedule to the Act it is evident that the amount of pension payable to a Judge of the High Court is linked with the length of service rendered by him. This very basis of fixation of amount of pension is challenged by the petitioner. (5). It is contended that the basis adopted by the Parliament is not in conformity with the provisions of Article 217 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contends that eligibility criteria for being qualified for appointment as Judge of the High Court, as laid down in clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution is that a personal shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of High Court unless he is citizen of India and he should have ten years of service in Judicial Office or he should have at least for ten years been an advocate of High Court. (6). The contention is that the practice at the bar and the service in Judicial Office are put on bar by the framers of the Constitution while determining the eli- gibility criteria for being appointed as a High Court Judge. Therefore, it is contended that while fixing the amount of pension, the number of years of practice at the bar could not be ignored. (7). This contention cannot be accepted. The framers of the Constitution were aware of the provisions of Article 217 when Article 221 was framed. Sub Clause (1) of Article 221 of the Constitution provides for salary of High Court Judges as prescribed in the Second Schedule to the Constitution. Further, the framers of the Constitution did not do so as regards the pension payable to the Judges. Different provision. Different Provision is made with regard to pension pin Sub clause (2) of Article 221 of the Constitution of India. It reads as under :– "(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and until so determined to such allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule : Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvan- tage after his appointment. (8). (8). Thus, framers of the Constitution, who laid down the eligibility criteria in Article 217 of the Constitution made distinction while determining the amount of pension and other allowances payable to the High Court Judges. That is why they made separate provision by enacting sub clause (2) of Article 221. The leave of absence and the pension and other allowances payable to High Court Judges was left to be determined by Parliament by enactment of law. The framers of the Constitution did not take upon the task of fixing the amount of pension themselves as they undertook this task while fixing the amount of salary. The very scheme of the Constitution suggests that the amount of pension to be payable to a High Court Judge is to be left to the wisdom of the Parliament. This is the mandate of the constitution. Therefore the contention based on the provisions of Constitution and particularly the provision of Article 217 is misconceived. If the argument is accepted it would lead to absurd result inasmuch we may have to come to the conclusion that the framers of the Constitution were not aware about the distinction introduced and made by themselves in Article 221 (2) in respect of leave of absence and pension payable to the High Court Judges. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument that the provision of Section 14 of the Act is contrary to law or violative of Article 217 and 221 of the Constitution. (9). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for purposeds of determining the constitutional validity of provisions of Section 14 of the Act one should read constitutional scheme of sub clause (2) of Article 217 and 221 (2) of the Constitution. We must read the constitutional scheme and examine the same. While reading the same, it is evident that the framers of the Constitution themselves were aware about the distinction to be made in respect of the salaries to be paid to the Judges and in respect of the amount of allowances and pension to be payable to the Judges. If any attempt is made to read the scheme of the Constitution as per the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it would amount to rewriting the Constitution by adopting the camouflage of interpreting the Constitution. If any attempt is made to read the scheme of the Constitution as per the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it would amount to rewriting the Constitution by adopting the camouflage of interpreting the Constitution. Such is not the task entrusted to the courts by the framers of the Constitu- tion. (10). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services that may be rendered by a High Court Judge cannot be equated with ordinary civil service. The basis of amount of pension payable to a civil servant may be that of length of service. It is contended that while determining the amount of pension to a High Court Judge the same criteria cannot be adopted, therefore it is submitted that when the parliament adopted the length of service as criterion for fixation of the amount of pension while enacting Section 14 of the Act, the Parliament has not acted in consonance with the basic features of the Constitution. We are afraid that though the argument is canvassed in palatable form and may appear to be attractive there is implicit fallacy in the reading of the constitutional provision. Because the framers of the Constitution did not wish the civil service to be treated at par with the services of the High Court Judges, the Constitution contains a mandate to the Parliament that the allowances leave of absence and the amount of pension payable to the High Court Judge shall be determined by Parliament by different law an may be enacted from time to time. Had the intention of the framers of the Constitution been to deal with the High Court Judges at par with the Civil Services the most simply way could have been that the amount of pension payable to the High Court Judges would heve been linked with the rank of one or other civil ser- vices. This is not done by the framers of the Constitution. Again the framers of the Constitution have left it to the wisdom of the Parliament. There is specific direction that the amount of leave of absence allowances and amount of pension payable to High Court Judges be determined by law that may be enacted from time to time. This is how the constitutional scheme is to be read. Again the framers of the Constitution have left it to the wisdom of the Parliament. There is specific direction that the amount of leave of absence allowances and amount of pension payable to High Court Judges be determined by law that may be enacted from time to time. This is how the constitutional scheme is to be read. Simply because the amount of pension payable to a High Court Judge is determined on the basis of length and tenure of service it cannot be said that the High Court Judges are treated at par with the Civil services by the Parliament. The very fact that the Parliament enacts specifically a special law with regard to the condition of services of High Court Judges as commanded by the Constitution, it becomes clear that the amount of pension that is determined by the Parliament has nothing to do with the pension payable to civil services. (11). It may be stated that while determining the amount of pension the Parliament may adopt a particular criterion which may be common with the criterian adopted while determining the amount fixed for civil services. But on that count, it cannot be said that the service of High Court Judges is treated at par with Civil Services. (12). This brings us to the question as to whether the underlying principle adopted by the Parliament while enacting Section 14 of the Act i.e. length of service for determination of amount of pension is reasonable or not.We do not see any unreasonableness in this criterion. It is a common knowledge that earnings at the bar can never be compared with the amount of salary received by a Judicial Officer. Therefore while fixing the amount of pension, if the year of practice at the bar is ignored and only the services of High Court Judges is taken into consideration the, criterion adopted can never be said to be unjust and unreasonable .We may hasten to say that had a reverse course been adopted as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in all probability would have resulted into unreasonableness. In that case unequals would have been treated equally. (13). For the aforesaid reasons the contention that the underlying principles of length of service adopted by the Parliament while enacting Section 14 of the Act is unjust and unreasonable cannot be accepted. (14). In that case unequals would have been treated equally. (13). For the aforesaid reasons the contention that the underlying principles of length of service adopted by the Parliament while enacting Section 14 of the Act is unjust and unreasonable cannot be accepted. (14). Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the amount of Rs. 15,750/- per annum (Rs. 1312.00 per month) fixed as minimum pension is illusory and inadequate for living a retired life by a High Court Judge. In this connection referred to the speeches of members of constitutional Assembly. We will only say that even the learned member of the constitutional Assembly-late Shri K.T. Shah (whose speech has been referred to and relied upon) spoke about ordinary livelihood and did not speak about lavish livelihook. This question has to be viewed from the aspect of per capita income of the every citizen of the country. True, if the amount of minimum pension fixed is compared with the earnings at the bar or with the earnings that could be made by perusing one or other profession even after retirement it may appear to be inadequate. But the Parliament has to take into consideration the economic condition of the country as a whole. It has also to take into consideration the amount of pension payable to other services and other Constitutional functionaries. Nothing is indicated in the petition or while argu- ing at the bar that the amount of minimum pension fixed when compared with the minimum amount of pension payable to other constitutional functionaries or to other servants is in any way inadequate or illusory. (15). There is no substance in the petition. Hence dismissed. Notices discharged.