BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THESE Writ Petitions have been filed by seven Writ Petitioners raising same questions of law and fact and therefore they are decided by this common judgment. The assertions made in one of the Writ Petitions being W. P. No. 11420/2001 are referred for the purpose of disposal of these Writ petitions. ( 2 ) ALL the petitioners had been Judges of the High Court at various points of time. All the Judges have been sanctioned pension at the rate of Rs. 13,000. 00 per month and the family pension is fixed at 30% of the pension payable to these Judges. The grievance of the petitioners is that, Section 17-A of the High court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of service) Act, 1954 as amended by Act 7 of 1999 is discriminatory and offending to article 14 of the Constitution of India. Section-17-A reads as under:"17-A. Family pension and gratuities Where a Judge who, being in service, on or after the commencement of the High Court and Supreme Court judges (Conditions of Service) amendment Act, 1986, dies, whether before or after retirement in circumstances to which Section 17 does not apply, family pension calculated at the rate of sixty per cent of the pension admissible to him on the date of his death shall be payable to the person or persons entitled thereto and the amount so payable shall be paid from the day following the date of death of the Judge for a period of seven years or for a period upto the date on which the judge would have attained the age of sixty-five years, had he survived, whichever is earlier and thereafter at the rate of half of the family pension so admissible subject to a minimum of twelve hundred and seventy-five rupees per month. " ( 3 ) IT is contended that while fixing the family pension the High Court Judges have not been even treated on par with the central Government employees. A Secretary to the Government of India draws the same pay as the Judge of the High Court. In case of Secretary to Government of India family pension is calculated at 30% of pay whereas for the High Court Judge it is calculated at 30% of his pension. A Secretary to government of India draws Rs. 26,000. A Secretary to the Government of India draws the same pay as the Judge of the High Court. In case of Secretary to Government of India family pension is calculated at 30% of pay whereas for the High Court Judge it is calculated at 30% of his pension. A Secretary to government of India draws Rs. 26,000. 00 as his pay which is the pay drawn by a Judge of the High Court. If they have full service to their credit both of them shall draw a pension of Rs. 13,000. 00. As regards family pension the Judge would draw 30% of rs. 13,000/- as family pension which would mean Rs. 3,900. 00 whereas the Secretary to Government would be entitled to rs. 7,800/ -. Such a provision in High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of service) Amendment Act, 1986 has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in O. Chinnapa Reddy v. Govt. of India which was a Writ Petition filed by justice O. Chinnapa Reddy a former Judge of the Supreme Court. The Court struck down Section 16-A of the High Court and supreme Court Judges (Conditions of service) Amendment Act, 1986 as being discriminatory. The question which arose before the Division Bench of this Court was,"whether the provision for grant of family pension to the widow of a Cabinet Secretary calculated @ 30% of his pay would be discriminatory vis-a-vis the family pension payable to the widow of a Supreme Court Judge calculated on the basis of the pension payable to him. " ( 4 ) NO counter has been filed, but it has not been disputed that the pay of the High court Judge has all along been same as the pay of Secretary to Government of India or the Chief Secretary of a State The High court also in the above judgment (supra) was of the view that a Supreme Court Judge has all along been occupying higher status than a Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretaries and Supreme Court Judges salary being same i. e. , Rs. 30,000. 00. The Court also noted that a Judge of the Supreme Court was discharging Constitutional functions whereas a Cabinet Secretary has no such functions. 30,000. 00. The Court also noted that a Judge of the Supreme Court was discharging Constitutional functions whereas a Cabinet Secretary has no such functions. On the same analogy it can be safely said that the Judge of High Court is occupying higher status than a Secretary to government of India or Chief Secretary of a state and is discharging Constitutional functions. Therefore, whatever principles would apply to the Judges of the Supreme court would equally apply to the Judges of the High Court. A widow of a Cabinet secretary is entitled to family pension of 30% of the pay of the deceased Cabinet secretary whereas widow of a Judge of supreme Court is only entitled to 30% of the pension of the Judge of the Supreme Court. The Judges of the Supreme Court and the high Court have been given same treatment as far as family pension is concerned and if it is found in case of Judges of Supreme court that it is arbitrary, in case of Judges of the High Court it cannot be said that it is not arbitrary. The Judgment of the Division bench (supra) which was dealing with the judges of the Supreme Court has referred to some earlier Judgments of the Supreme court. It negatived the argument that the judges of the Supreme Court and Cabinet secretary form two different classes and as such the statute providing for different quantum of pension and family pension would not attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A similar argument made in this case that a Chief secretary to a State or Secretary to government of India form a different class than the Judges of the High Court and therefore they can be governed for the purpose of pension and family pension by two different statutes or Rules cannot be accepted. The Court in paras 18 and 19 of the judgment (supra) laid down;"18. Pension, as is well-known, is not a bounty. A person is entitled to a pension, and consequent upon his death his widow is entitled to a family pension as a matter of right, which is a right of property within the meaning of article 300-A of the Constitution of india. Pension, as is well-known, is not a bounty. A person is entitled to a pension, and consequent upon his death his widow is entitled to a family pension as a matter of right, which is a right of property within the meaning of article 300-A of the Constitution of india. Having regard to the services rendered by him, while calculating the amount of pension and/or family pension the nature of services and/or the mode and manner of calculation thereof must therefore be calculated having regard to the pension and family pension payable to a person either drawing less emoluments or discharging less important functions. Further more, we do not find any justification whatsoever as to why despite accepting the Report of the fifth Central Pay Commission, as also despite issue of the above Circular letter dated 2-2-1998, a different standard of family pension to the supreme Court Judges vis-a-vis the cabinet Secretary had been laid down. 19. What therefor would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not only different nature of duties and functions of a Supreme court Judge vis-a-vis the Cabinet secretary, but also the mode and manner of calculation of pension/family pension having regard to the recommendations of the Fifth Central pay Commission. " ( 5 ) IN view of this Judgment of the earlier division Bench of this Court we have no doubt in our mind that Section-17-A of the high Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as amended by Act 7 of 1999 is ultra vires to the Constitution to the extent of absurdity which has been pointed out hereinabove and therefore we direct that, in the matter of family pension to the judges of the High Court the Government should calculate the family pension at the rate of 30% of the last pay drawn by the judge concerned and not on-the basis of pension drawn by him. The same principle should govern calculation of payment of pension which govern the Chief Secretary of. a State or the Secretary to the Government. ( 6 ) THE Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.