JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and has filed the present writ petition against the State of Rajasthan and Union of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ order to pay the petitioner the difference of gratuity by computing her pensionary benefits as per revision by Government of India vide letter dated 14.7.1995. She has claimed the difference of Rs. 1,15,160/- with interest and costs. 2. The petitioner was elevated to the Judgeship of High Court on 13th July, 1985 from the service i.e. from the quota of District and Sessions Judges. She had retired on superannuation on 17th November, 1995. She was sanctioned and paid the gratuity amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. Government of India vide letter dated 14.11.1995 had treated the Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for the purpose of death gratuity and retirement gratuity and maximum limit of gratuity was raised from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. The letter was effective from 1.4.1995. There was a mention in the letter that even those persons who had already retired or died on or after 1.4.1995 shall also entitled to the benefit of the letter dated 14.7.1995. The commutation as to be done by the department concerned. Letter dated 14.7.1995 has been attached for record as Annexure 3. In furtherance to Annexure 3 another letter dated 14.9.1995 was issued by the Government of India, DOP and Training, New Delhi to the Chief Secretaries of all States, Annexure 4 to the effect that the benefit of the letter of July 1995 Annexure 3 shall stand extended to all the personnels of All India Service and still by another letter dated 10.11.1995, copy of which has been attached as Annexure 6, the Government of India had taken a decision that the death/retirement gratuity was to be calculated from 1.4.1995 onwards after treating 63% of the Dearness Allowance subject to minimum of Rs. 4,380/- p.m. and maximum to Rs. 2.50 lacs. 4,380/- p.m. and maximum to Rs. 2.50 lacs. It was further mentioned that in case of the High/Supreme Court Judges retiring under Part III of the First Schedule/Schedule to the High/Supreme Court Judges (C/S) Act, 1954/58, the gratuity was to be calculated w.e.f. 1.4.1995, and the Judges shall be entitled to the benefit as per letter dated 14.7.1995, copy of which has been attached as Annexure 3, if the concerned State Government adopts the said letter in respect of its employees including the members of State Higher Judicial Service, and from the date from which the concerned State Government has adopted it and the States were requested to review/revise the gratuity to be paid to the High Court/Supreme Court Judges. The petitioner did apply to the concerned authorities for payment of the benefit arising out of letter Annexure 3, 4 and 6. The petitioner was informed vide Annexure 8 that the Department had already adopted the letter dated 14.9.1995 about the treatment of Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for the purpose of death/retirement gratuity and raising of limit of gratuity to Rs. 2.50 lacs in respect of Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court. The Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had informed the Finance Department of the State of Rajasthan of the legal position with the request and said Justice Mohini Kapur was entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,15,160/- out of which Rs. 1.00,000/- had already been paid. 4. Reply hs been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 i.e. the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that the State Government was under no legal obligation to adopt the said letter Annexure 1, 4 and 6 and if the letter was adopted the petitioner was entitled to gratuity from the date of adoption. It is submitted that the letter was adopted w.e.f. 1.4.1996 instead of 1.4.1995 and, therefore, no benefit could have accrued to any Hon'ble Judge who had retired or working in between the period from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1996 and, therefore, no Judge was entitled for the enhanced limit or gratuity. 5. The contention of the respondent is not acceptable as that would amount to discrimination vis-a-vis to the Judges of the High Court of various States. 5. The contention of the respondent is not acceptable as that would amount to discrimination vis-a-vis to the Judges of the High Court of various States. The letter dated 14.9.1995 (Annexure 4) provides that the persons who are retired or died on or after 1.4.1995 are to be paid the recomputed gratuity suo moto in accordance with the letter dated 14.7.1995 and these very provisions were made applicable in the case of Judges as well vide letter Annexure 6 dated 10.11.1995 wherein the Government of India had directed that the benefit of recomputed gratuity shall be made applicable to the members of the State Higher Judicial Service from the date from which the concerned Government adopts it. However, it was made clear that the pension cases of the Judges of the High Court/Supreme Court died or retired on or after 1.4.1995 may be reviewed and revised and the information was to be furnished to the Government of India for sanction of revised death/retirement gratuity. Para 2 of the above said letter Annexure 6 dated 10.11.1995 is reproduced as under which clearly provides that the benefit shall be applicable to the class of High Court Judges and inclusion has been made of other services i.e. the members of the State Higher Judicial Service from the date when the concerned Government adopts the letter. The reading of Annexure 6 itself is very clear insofar as High Court Judges are concerned that they are to be given the benefit of the revised gratuity if any of them retires on or after 1.4.1995, however, the members of the State Higher Judicial Service shall be entitled of such benefit from the date the State Government adopts this letter. The letter itself provides two separate dates for High Court Judges and for State Higher Judicial Services. "In the case of High/Supreme Court Judges retiring under Part III of the first Schedule/Schedule to the High/Supreme Court Judges (C/S) Act, 1954/58, the Death/Retirement Gratuity is calculated as per the rules/orders/notifications of their earlier pensionable post under the Union/State. The letter itself provides two separate dates for High Court Judges and for State Higher Judicial Services. "In the case of High/Supreme Court Judges retiring under Part III of the first Schedule/Schedule to the High/Supreme Court Judges (C/S) Act, 1954/58, the Death/Retirement Gratuity is calculated as per the rules/orders/notifications of their earlier pensionable post under the Union/State. Accordingly, Part III Judges of High/Supreme Court who die/retire on or after 1.4.1995, shall be entitled to the benefits of Department of Personnel and Training's letter dated 14.7.1995 if the concerned State Government adopts the said letter in respect of its employees including Members of State Higher Judicial Service and from the date, from which the concerned State Government has adopted it. In view of above, it is requested that pension cases of Judges of High Courts/Supreme Courts, who died/retired on or after 1.4.1995, for the purpose of revised Death/Retirement Gratuity may be reviewed and revised reports, if any, furnished to this Department for sanction of revised Death/Retirement Gratuity." 6. A communication Annexure 8 dated 12.12.1995 was also sent to the petitioner by the Government of India wherein the Government had clearly shown its intention to make the revised gratuity matter applicable to the Hon'ble Judges from 1.4.1995 and despite that the respondents had not interpreted the relevant letters correctly. Apart from above, the Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Jain v. Union of India, 1988(4) SCC 121 almost in the similar circumstances had observed that if liberty is given to the States for fixing different dates for sanction of revised pension of High Court Judges, such a direction would constitutionally be impermissible as offending Article 14 of the Constitution and would amount to denial or equal treatment to the persons belonging to the same class without any rational basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting a similar letter dated 18.12.1987 issued by the Government of India had observed as under : "On December 18, 1987 the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice purported to issue a letter addressed to (1) Accountants General, All States, (2) the Pay and Accounts Officer Supreme Court of India, New Delhi and (3) the Pay and Accounts Officer No. XIV, Delhi Administration, New Delhi giving directions as to the manner in which the basic pension of the Supreme Court Judges and High Court Judges governed by the provisions of Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court/Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954/58 is to be determined, the relevant portion whereof reads: The ordinary pension admissible to High Court/Supreme Court Judges under para 2(a) of Part III of the First Schedule/Schedule to the High Court/Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954/58, respectively, may be revised with effect from January 1, 1986 as in the case of the employees of Central Government or from some other date, the respective State Governments may decide to adopt these orders or an independent order issued by them, if any, to grant the benefit of increased pension on similar lines to their employees including Members of higher Judicial Service." "The said letter goes on to say: This is subject to the condition that the total pension including additional pension admissible to such Judges under paras 2 (a) and (b) of Part III of the First Schedule/Schedule to the High Court/Supreme Court Judges (C/S) Act, 1954/58, shall not exceed Rs. 48,000 p.a. Rs. 54,000 p.a. and Rs. 60,000 p.a. in the case of Judge, High Court, Chief Justice, High Court/Judge, Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India, respectively." "We fail to appreciate the propriety of the aforesaid letter of the Ministry of Law and Justice giving liberty to the different State Governments to deny the benefit of the revised pension to the Service Judges consequent upon the enactment of Acts 38 of 1986 and 20 of 1988 read along with the aforesaid Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare dated April 14, 1987 and April 16, 1987 and Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956. Virtually this means that the State Government may or may not issue any orders in terms of paragraphs 2, 3 of the Office Memorandum dated April 16, 1987 appointing a date for grant of revised pension, or appoint different dates for the grant for revised pension to the retired High Court Judges who had opted to be governed by Part III of the First Schedule of the Act. Such a direction, in our view, was constitutionally impermissible as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. It tantamounts to denial of equal treatment to persons belonging to the same class without any rational basis." 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.K. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, RLR 1991(1) page 311 had held that all High Court Judges throughout the country who are governed by Part III of First Schedule of the Act on their retirement are entitled to equal amount of gratuity and other pensionary benefits. 8. Despite the authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court in M.L. Jain's case (supra) and of the Division Bench of this High Court in G.K. Sharma case, the respondents have failed to grant the gratuity as per order Annexures 2, 3 and 6 to the petitioner and compelled her to approach this court for enforcement of her right to which she was entitled from the very beginning. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The entitlement of gratuity shall be recomputed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the remaining un-paid amount at the rate of 12% p.a. to be calculated from the date of retirement till payment. Costs are assessed to Rs. 5,000/-.Petition allowed. *******