BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as Indian administrative Service (IAS) Officer and had worked in various capacities in the central Government and in the State government. He was offered an appointment as Administrative Member in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal by letter dated 16-12-93. He gave his consent for such appointment on 10-1-94. At the time the offer was made to him he was working as Special Chief Secretary to government of Andhra Pradesh and was drawing salary at Rs. 8,000. 00 per month. The total emoluments were Rs. 13,240. 00 per month. In order to seek appointment as member of the Tribunal he had to seek voluntary retirement which he sought with effect from 30-4-1994. He was appointed as administrative Member of the Tribunal on 4-2-94 and took charge in April, 1994 after relinquishing the office with the State government. When he gave his consent for appointment as a Member of the Tribunal he had stated in his acceptance letter that;"as desired therein I hereby convey my willingness to accept the offer, but i would like to add that the present pay i am getting (namely Rs. 8,000. 00 p. m) may be protected or alternatively the government of India be moved to revise the pay scale to the maximum of rs. 8,000/-"according to him although he had demanded pay of Rs. 8,000. 00 per month, neither the State Government nor the government of India wrote back to him that his request could not be met. After his consent, on 4-2-94 the Government of India issued an order indicating that the President of India was pleased to appoint him as member of Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal. It was also mentioned in the order that the salaries and allowances payable and the conditions of service would be in accordance with Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal (Salaries and allowances and Conditions of Service of chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) rules, 1989 as amended from time to time. ( 2 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal has been created under the administrative Tribunals Act. 1985. The power to enact such law was granted under articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution which were incorporated in the Constitution by 42nd Amendment. ( 2 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal has been created under the administrative Tribunals Act. 1985. The power to enact such law was granted under articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution which were incorporated in the Constitution by 42nd Amendment. It enabled the parliament to provide by law for adjudication of disputes or complaints by the Administrative Tribunals with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and in connection with the affairs of the Union or the State. The Government also in terms of section 35 of the said Act issued notification no. 25 on 26-10-1989 known as the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Salaries, allowances and Conditions of Service of chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) rules, 1989 . In this Writ Petition Rule-3 of the said Rules has been challenged as ultra vires, illegal, unjust and discriminatory. ( 3 ) NOW, in the context of the assertions made in the writ petition it has to be seen whether Rule -3 of the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal (Salaries, allowances and Conditions of Service of chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) rules, 1989 is illegal. Rule-3 as amended reads as under;"that the Chairman shall receive a pay of Rupees eight thousand plus a special pay of Rupees five hundred per mensem. A Vice-Chairman shall receive a pay of rupees eight thousand per mensem. A Member shall receive a pay in the scale of Rs. 7300-100-7600 per mensem. Provided that in the case of an appointment as Chairman, Vice chairman or a Member or a person who has retired as Judge of a High court or who has retired from service under the Central Government or a state Government and who is in receipt of or has received or has become entitled to receive any retirement benefit by way of pension and/or gratuity, Employer s contribution to the Contributory provident Fund or other forms of retirement benefits, the aforementioned pay shall be reduced by the gross amount of pension and pension equivalent of gratuity or employer s contribution to the contributory Provident Fund or any other form of retirement benefits, if any drawn or to be drawn by him. "this rule was subsequently amended in 1994 and according to the amendment the maximum pay scale was fixed at Rs. 8,000. 00 per month which was earlier Rs. 7,600. 00. "this rule was subsequently amended in 1994 and according to the amendment the maximum pay scale was fixed at Rs. 8,000. 00 per month which was earlier Rs. 7,600. 00. This rule makes it clear that Chairman would get an amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 minus the pension received by him, if he had retired as Judge of the High Court or from the Service of the Government. The members would also get their salary minus the pension received by them if they had retired from service of the Government of india or the State Government. ( 4 ) NOW, the contention of the petitioner is that appointment as Member of the administrative Tribunal was neither extension of service nor re-employment. Such appointment was not service either under the State Government or Union of india. It was a fresh appointment created to an independent Tribunal. The duties, functions and responsibilities were judicial in nature and it was a full time job. In the event of re-employment it was open for the government to reduce pension from the pay due on the re-employment but it could not be done in case of fresh appointments. In case of fresh appointments pay had to be paid in accordance with the rules but the pension drawn by the person so appointed for his past service with the Government, either Union or the State, could not have been deducted. So, the net argument of the petitioner is that he was entitled to pension plus salary in accordance with Rule 3 of the andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and members) Rules, 1989. ( 5 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the director in the Office of Department of personnel and Training in which it is stated that when the order was issued appointing the petitioner as Member of the Tribunal it was made clear to him that he would be paid in the pay scale of Rs. 7300-200-7500-250-8000 because by that time Rule-3 had been amended while the petitioner had stated in his consent letter that he should get minimum of Rs. 8,000. 00 pay. He had not stated anything about the order issued which made it clear that the pension received by him would be reduced from the salary which he would be entitled in terms of Rule-3 in the pay scale of Rs. 7300-8000. 8,000. 00 pay. He had not stated anything about the order issued which made it clear that the pension received by him would be reduced from the salary which he would be entitled in terms of Rule-3 in the pay scale of Rs. 7300-8000. It is further contended that the service conditions of the Members of the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal are not the same as those of the Government servants. Though there may be similarities the service conditions of the Members were governed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice chairman and Members) Rules, 1989 as amended from time to time. As per Rule 5 of these rules it was mandatory for a government servant to seek retirement from the service before joining the Tribunal and the proviso to Rule-3 of the Rules provide for deduction of pension, if any, from the pay fixed as Member of the Tribunal. It is accepted that the appointment of Member in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal is not a case of re-employment or extension of service but it is a tenure appointment, the Members are appointed for a fixed period of 5 years or till they attain 62 years whichever is earlier. Since there was a specific rule providing for deduction of pension the petitioner could have declined the offer when it was made to him even after the appointment order was issued. It has further been submitted that the Judge of the high Court, if after retirement is appointed to the Tribunal if he were in receipt of any pension in respect of any previous service the same would have to be reduced from his salary. This has been made clear by the constitution itself as per Part-D of Second schedule of the Constitution of India. So, it is contended that what is provided for the judges of Supreme Court and High Court by the Constitution of India itself, if applied to the Members of the Tribunal who had retired from a pensionable service in the union or the State could not be termed unconstitutional or illegal. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has drawn our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. B. Khare. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has drawn our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. B. Khare. He invited our attention to the following paragraph;"in our considered view, the High court has gone wrong in considering the service in CAT as re-employment in connection with the affairs of the union. On the contrary, an independent judicial service, the appointment in the CAT is on tenure basis. "he also invited our attention to paragraph 22 of the judgment which reads as under;"in view of the conclusion that the first respondent is not a person re- employed on a post in connection with the affairs of Union Government, we see no scope whatever for applying central Civil Service (Fixation of Pay of re-employed Pensioners) Order, 1986. "we have no doubt in our mind that the service in the CAT is neither re-employment nor an employment in connection with the affairs of the Union or the State government. It is an appointment to an independent autonomous Tribunal but the union of India and the State Government in terms of the Act under which the Tribunals have been created have power to lay down the conditions of service and in any case it is for the employer to decide what salary has to be paid to those who man such Tribunals. As has been mentioned herein above, even the Constitution of India permits deduction of pension if received by a person for his past service on appointment as a judge of supreme Court or of the High Court. Under section 9 of Part-D of Schedule-II of the constitution the pay for the Chief Justice of india and the Judges of the Supreme Court has been mentioned and under Section 10 the salary of Chief Justice of the High Court and the Judges of the High Courts has been laid down. Under section 9 of Part-D of Schedule-II of the constitution the pay for the Chief Justice of india and the Judges of the Supreme Court has been mentioned and under Section 10 the salary of Chief Justice of the High Court and the Judges of the High Courts has been laid down. Both contain the following proviso; the proviso contained in Section 9 is reproduced;"provided that if a Judge of the supreme Court 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 under the Government of India or any of its predecessor Governments or under the Government of a State or any of its predecessor Governments, his salary in respect of service in the supreme Court shall be reduced (a) by the amount of that pension, and (b) If he has, before such appointment received in lieu of a portion of the pension due to him in respect of such previous service the commuted value thereof by the amount of that portion of the pension, and (c) if he has, before such appointment, received a retirement gratuity in respect of such previous service, by the pension equivalent of that gratuity. "when the salary of a Judge of the Supreme court or High Court or Chief Justice of India or Chief Justice of High Court can be reduced by the amount of pension he was receiving in respect of his past service in terms of the provisions of the Constitution, it can be reduced for members of the tribunal as well. We do not find any illegality. Besides, when the order of appointment was passed in favour of the petitioner and it was made clear to him that the pension received by him shall be reduced from his salary he had not only joined service without prejudice but continued to serve the Tribunal till 1998 and filed the Writ petition after 4 years of his joining the Tribunal at the completion of his tenure. ( 7 ) A case of the similar nature came up before the Supreme Court in V. S. Mallimath v. Union of India. Justice Mallimath who was the petitioner in this case retired as Chief justice of High Court of Kerala. After his retirement he was appointed as Member of the National Human Rights commission. ( 7 ) A case of the similar nature came up before the Supreme Court in V. S. Mallimath v. Union of India. Justice Mallimath who was the petitioner in this case retired as Chief justice of High Court of Kerala. After his retirement he was appointed as Member of the National Human Rights commission. The case of Justice Mallimath was, after retiring as Chief Justice of Kerala High Court on 11-6-91 he was appointed as Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 5-12-91, on his retirement from the Tribunal he was appointed as Member of the national Human Rights Commission on 14-4-94 and continued as Member of the commission till he attained the age of 70 years. While he continued as Member of the national Human Rights Commission he was not paid full salary which he was entitled to under the relevant Rules, on the other hand deductions were made under the proviso to Rule 3 (b) of the National Human rights Commission Chairperson and members (Salaries, Allowances and other conditions of Service) Rules, 1993. Now, let us see what was the Rule 3 (b) of the Rules concerning the salary and allowances to the members of the National Human Rights commission. Rule 3 (b) lays down;"3 (B) a Member, a salary which is equal to the salary of a Judge of the Supreme court: provided that if the Chairperson or a member at the time of his appointment was in receipt of, or being eligible so to do, had elected to draw, a pension (other than disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service under the Government of the union or Government of a State, his salary in respect of service as a chairperson or as the case may be a member shall be reduced: (i) by the amount of that pension; (ii) if he had, before assuming office, received, in lieu of a portion of pension due to him in respect of such previous service, the commuted value thereof by the amount of that portion of the pension; and (iii) by any other form of retirement benefits, being drawn or availed of or to be drawn or availed of by him. "rule 3 with proviso in case of Members of the National Human Rights Commission is in para materia with Rule-3 of the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Salaries, allowances and Conditions of Service of chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) rules, 1989. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the rules was not found illegal. ( 8 ) FOR these reasons, we do not find any merit in the Writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. W. P. NO. 22877/98: ( 9 ) FOR the reasons given in W. P. No. 12209/98 we do not find any merit in this Writ petition also which is accordingly dismissed.