Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1076 (AP)

M. Rama Krishna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2008-12-19

V.V.S.RAO

body2008
Judgment : Common Order: (Hon'ble VVSRJ) An interesting question falls for consideration in these two writ petitions. The question is regarding right of District Judge Grade I (DJ), who is appointed as Upa-Lokayukta under Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act 1983 (Lokayukta Act, for brevity), to claim Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief (DA/DR) on the pension payable to Upa-Lokayukta after remitting office after completion of term of five years. Petitioners in these two cases, who held office of Upa-Lokayukta contend that a District Judge who is appointed as Upa-Lokayukta is entitled to claim DR on pension drawn as DJ as well as Upa-Lokayukta. The Government admits entitlement of petitioners of DA on pension payable as District Judges but oppose payment of DA on pension payable as Upa-Lokayukta. Whether they are entitled to two pensions and two DAs or two pensions and one DA is contentious issue in these matters and hence this common order. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. Petitioner in W.P.No.3502 of 2000 (hereafter, first petitioner) and petitioner in W.P.No.4990 of 2003 (hereafter, second petitioner) were members of Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service. Even before they were superannuated as DJs, they were appointed as Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3(1)(c) of Lokayukta Act. While in office as Upa-Lokayukta, they were formally retired as DJs and pension was fixed, which includes pension and DA or Dearness Relief in the case of second petitioner. But in the case of first petitioner, he was not sanctioned DA on the pension, on the ground that he was employed as Upa-Lokayukta. Therefore, first petitioner while holding office as Upa-Lokayukta filed W.P.No.3502 of 2000 seeking writ of Mandamus directing respondents to pay DA on pension as per Rules. In the case of second petitioner he was in fact sanctioned pension as District Judge including DA but after he laid down office of Upa-Lokayukta, while fixing pension for his service as Upa-Lokayukta, he was denied DA on the ground that he is already in receipt of DA on the pension drawn as District Judge. Therefore he sought a writ of Mandamus seeking DA on pension as Upa-Lokayukta. At the time of hearing, it is admitted by all that both the petitioners are drawing pension for their services as District Judge. Therefore he sought a writ of Mandamus seeking DA on pension as Upa-Lokayukta. At the time of hearing, it is admitted by all that both the petitioners are drawing pension for their services as District Judge. They are also drawing pension for their service as Upa-Lokayukta as per Lokayukta Act and Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta, Upa-Lokayukta (Condition of Service) Rules 1987 (hereafter, Lokayukta Rules). The contentious issue is this: When both former Upa-Lokayuktas are drawing pension and DA admissible on pension drawn by them for their services as District Judge, are they entitled again for DA on pension being paid to them for their services as Upa-Lokayukta? Learned Senior Counsel, Sri K.Subrahmanya Reddy, for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department (GAD) made their submissions and also placed reliance on case-law. A reference to these, are made at appropriate places. Pension is a condition of public service. In addition to incremental/progressive scale of pay attached, to a post, holder of post, after retirement is entitled to superannuation pension In Service Law, family pension, compensatory pension, invalid pension and retirement pension are also provided for. But for the purpose of this case, it is not necessary to be concerned with them.. In determining pay for a post under the State, many considerations weigh with the State. Pension that would be payable to a public servant, after retirement, is also an important factor. So to say while fixing pay attached to a post, part of money is (it is assumed) withheld to be paid lifelong to holder of post even after superannuation as pension. That is the reason why service law does not recognize pension as a bounty paid as a charity. Pension is earned by a holder of post. Pension is periodic money payments to a retiree for rest of his natural life. The average emoluments drawn during the last period of tenure determine quantum payable to holder of post subject to certain conditionalities. Pension is in recognition of service of a person to give benefit in old age as a social security measure. Pension is periodic money payments to a retiree for rest of his natural life. The average emoluments drawn during the last period of tenure determine quantum payable to holder of post subject to certain conditionalities. Pension is in recognition of service of a person to give benefit in old age as a social security measure. It need not be explicitly contributory in nature Article 366(17) defines "pension" means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable; a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, of subscriptions to a provident fund; and impliedly it is assumed that while in active service, holder of post contributes for his pension paid after he is superannuated. (see State of Gujarat v R.B.Chandrachud (1969) 1 SCC 300 : AIR 1971 SC 846 , Deokinandan Prasad v State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330 : AIR 1971 SC 1409 and D.S.Nakara v Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 : AIR 1983 SC 130 ). Thus it may be taken as well settled that pension is as of right paid to retiree as per the Rules. In State of Andhra Pradesh, to begin with, Pension Rules in Civil Service Regulations of Madras Presidency, Hyderabad Civil Service Rules, Revised Pension Rules 1951 of Hyderabad State, regulated payment of pension to retired government servants. In 1961, Andhra Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961, were made. These were applied to all employees. All these Rules were consolidated in 1980 known as Andhra Pradesh (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980 (Revised Pension Rules, for brevity). These deal with different kinds of pensions including superannuation pension (Rule 33). Every kind of pension under Revised Rules is subject to future good conduct. Though as per Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules 1964, District Judges are governed by All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958 (Central Rules, for brevity), Revised Pension Rules were also made applicable to them. In addition to actual pension payable as per the Rules, every pensioner was given DA/DR on the basis of rising cost of living, on par with persons holding post probably to nullify affect of rising cost of living. In addition to actual pension payable as per the Rules, every pensioner was given DA/DR on the basis of rising cost of living, on par with persons holding post probably to nullify affect of rising cost of living. Payment of DA/DR is governed by Executive Orders issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time. The purpose of granting such allowance/relief is to see that capital value of sanctioned pension remains almost constant without causing any hardship to pensioner. Indeed DR is payable to all types of pensioners irrespective of specific periodical claim for such relief. That payment of pension to retired persons is an important duty of State is recognized by Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara (supra), wherein it was held that payment of pension is a device to achieve constitutional preambular specification of ensuring social and economic justice. There cannot be any doubt that Revised Pension Rules shall apply to members of State Higher Judicial Service, namely, District Judges Grade-I and Grade-II. Rule 2 thereof makes this clear. There is no controversy or dispute that both petitioners were sanctioned superannuation pension as well as family pension by appropriate authority in accordance with Revised Pension Rules. There is also no controversy or dispute that petitioners are also drawing DA/DR on pension payable to them for their past services as District Judges. There is also no controversy that the Revised Pension Rules nowhere prohibit payment of DA on pension paid to a retired District Judge, who after such retirement was appointed to an office and completed tenure. As presently seen even Revised Pension Rules in certain circumstances and instances, permit counting of a service for the purpose of determining pension payable after superannuation. Before taking up this aspect, position of Upa-Lokayukta under Lokayukta Act is to be adverted to. Upa-Lokayukta is appointed under Section 3(1)(c) of Lokayukta Act from among District Judges Grade-I out of a panel of five names forwarded by Chief Justice of High Court. Section 4 injuncts Upa-Lokayukta from being a member of a legislative house, or from connected with any political party or from being carrying or practising any profession. Section 5 provides that every Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of Lokayukta Act are relevant. They read as under. 5. Section 5 provides that every Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of Lokayukta Act are relevant. They read as under. 5. Term of office andother conditions of service of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta: - (3) On ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall be ineligible for re-appointment to that office and also for further employment for a period of five years either under the Government or any such local authority, Corporation, Government Company or Society as is referred to in subclause (v) of clause (k) of Section 2. (4) The salary payable to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta in respect of time spent on actual service shall respectively be the same as that of the Chief Justice or Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (5) The allowances and pension, payable to and other conditions of service of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall respectively be the same as those of the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh: Provided that the allowances and pension payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (emphasis supplied) The above provisions deal with conditions of service like salary, pension and post retiral employment. Upa-Lokayukta shall be entitled to allowances and pension as that of a Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The proviso to subsection (5) to Section 5 of Lokayukta Act prohibits varying of allowances and pension payable to Upa-Lokayukta after his appointment. Section 20 of Lokayukta Act is Rule-making power of the Government. Section 20(2)(b) of Lokayukta Act empowers Government to make rules providing for allowances and pension payable and other conditions of service of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. Accordingly these conditions are provided by delegated legislature by promulgation of Lokayukta Rules. Rules 2(1)(i), 6, 12 and 15 of Lokayukta Rules, deal with pension and allowances. It is necessary to refer to them here. 2. Definitions:- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (i) 'pension' means pension of any kind payable to the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta and includes any gratuity or other sum or sums so payable by way death or retirement benefits; 6. It is necessary to refer to them here. 2. Definitions:- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (i) 'pension' means pension of any kind payable to the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta and includes any gratuity or other sum or sums so payable by way death or retirement benefits; 6. Pension:- (1) The Lokayukta shall be paid pension of Rs.15,000/-per annum for each completed year of service as Lokayukta. (2) TheUpa-Lokayukta shall be paid pension of Rs.13,000/-(Rupees thirteen thousand per annum for each completed year of service as Upa-Lokayukta. (3) TheLokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta shall be entitled to pension as stated above in addition to the pension to which they may be entitled in respect of any previous service rendered by them under the Union or the State: (4) The rules for the time being applicable to the Chief Justice or the Judges of the High Court or Andhra Pradesh in regard to the commutation of pension shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Lokayukta and the Upa-Lokayukta respectively. (5) The Governor may, for special reasons, direct that any period not exceeding three months shall be added to the actual service of the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta, as the case may be, for the purpose of fixing the pension payable to him/her. Provided that the Lokayukta and the Upa-Lokayukta shall not receive any pension if he/she has been removed from that office under Section 6 of the Act. 1. 12. Dearness Allowance etc.:- The Dearness Allowance, Sumptuary allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and other allowances payable to the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta, shall be the same as those payable to the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh respectively. 2. 15. Gratuity and Family Pension:- The Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta are entitled to gratuity and family pension as applicable to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh respectively. A perusal of the provisions of Lokayukta Act and Lokayukta Rules referred to hereinabove would show that insofar as conditions of service of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta are concerned especially allowance and pension payable to them, Revised Pension Rules have no application though it is always open to the State to make those Rules applicable to the offices of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. Be that as it is as defined in Rule 2(1)(i) of Lokayukta Rules, pension means pension of any kind payable to Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta and includes gratuity or other sum or sums payable by way of death or retirement benefits. Rule 6 of Lokayukta Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 30.8.2000 (with effect from 01.01.1996) reads as under. 6. Pension:- (1) The Lokayukta shall be paid pension of Rs.15,000/-per annum for each completed year of service as Lokayukta. .(2) TheUpa-Lokayukta shall be paid pension of Rs.13,000/-(Rupees thirteen thousand per annum for each completed year of service as Upa-Lokayukta. .(3) TheLokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta shall be entitled to pension as stated above in addition to the pension to which they may be entitled in respect of any previous service rendered by them under the Union or the State: .(4) The rules for the time being applicable to the Chief Justice or the Judges of the High Court or Andhra Pradesh in regard to the commutation of pension shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Lokayukta and the Upa-Lokayukta respectively. .(5) The Governor may, for special reasons, direct that any period not exceeding three months shall be added to the actual service of the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta, as the case may be, for the purpose of fixing the pension payable to him/her. (emphasis supplied) Provided that the Lokayukta and the Upa-Lokayukta shall not receive any pension if he/she has been removed from that office under Section 6 of the Act. In addition to prescribing annual pension of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta, the Rule also lays down that such pension is in addition to the pension to which office holders may be entitled to in respect of any previous service rendered by them under Union or State. Further, the Rules applicable to Chief Justice or Judges of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in regard to commutation of pension are also applicable to Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. As per Section 5(4) of Lokayukta Act, offices of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta are equated to offices of Chief Judge and Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh respectively, for payment of salary. This means that Upa-Lokayukta will draw the same salary as is payable to a Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Even in the matter of payment of pensionary allowances there cannot be any discrimination. This means that Upa-Lokayukta will draw the same salary as is payable to a Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Even in the matter of payment of pensionary allowances there cannot be any discrimination. When a retired High Court Judge is paid DA/DR on the pension sanctioned for the service as High Court Judge, even Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta aproprio vigore must be held entitled for all allowances including DA/DR payable for the service as Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta. The offices of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta created under the statute also provide very comprehensively for all matters, "for appointment and functions". A person appointed to office of Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 6(3) of Lokayukta Rules is entitled for two pensions, one in respect of his previous service under the State, in this case as District Judge Grade-I, and another pension for service as Upa-Lokayukta. When statutory rules made under the statute, which form part of main statute, provide for two pensions, unless it is specifically indicated, it cannot be assumed or surmised that Act and Rules intended to deprive Upa-Lokayukta of DA/DR on the pension payable to him. The legislature and Rule-making authority are assumed to be aware of legal position when they acted in their sphere. That what is prescribed by a statute cannot be supplanted by an executive order is axiomatic. Therefore, by an executive order, right of Upa-Lokayukta for claiming/drawing DA/DR cannot be curtailed. In that view of the matter any reliance on Rule 12 of Lokayukta Rules is misconceived. Rule 12 only provides that while in office Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall be entitled to DA, sumptuary allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and other allowances payable to Chief Justice or a Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Rule 12 by itself cannot dilute the effect of Section 5(4) of Lokayukta Act (salary of Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta) and Rule 6(3) of Lokayukta Rules (pension to Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta). In the counter affidavit filed in justification of denial of DA/DR, in W.P.No.4990 of 2003, it is stated as under. It is submitted that it is true that the payment of salary and pension of the petitioner are governed by the A.P.Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta Act and APLA & ULA (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1986 which provide for equating the pay and allowances, pension and other conditions of APLA & ULA with that of Chief Justice and Judge of High Court respectively. The contention of the petitioner is not true since the Dearness Relief cannot be allowed on two service pensions if the service is rendered in different services i.e. Central and State Services as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.350, Fin.&Plg. (FW.Pen.I) Dept. dated 9.8.1976 and as per the clarifications given in Lr.No.39265/440/A2/Pen.I/96, Fin.Dept. dated 22.6.1996. In the instant case, the petitioner cannot be allowed Dearness Relief on both the pensions as both the services rendered by him are from the State Service. Secs.5(4) and 5(5) of the APLA & ULA Act are not relevant to the case as no mention has been made in these Sections with regard to payment of Dearness Relief. It is submitted that as stated above, Secs.5(4) and 5(5) of APLA & ULA Act are not relevant to answer the question with regard to payment of Dearness Relief on pension. The claim with regard to payment of DR in regard to the pension eligible for the service rendered as Dist & Sessions Judge and Judge of High Court, it is submitted that the service rendered as Dist Judge is a State Service and service rendered as Judge of High Court is a Central Service. In the case of the petitioners herein, the services rendered by him as Dist Judge and Upa Lokayukta are both State Services, and therefore, as per G.O.Ms.No.350, Fin. Dept dt.9.8.76, he is not entitled for Dearness Relief on two pension. The argument of Government as above is wholly unsustainable. Even when a person ceases to be member of one service and joins another service, law is very clear that service in previous post can be counted for the purpose of pension. Rules 7, 15, 18 and 19 of Pension Rules reflect instances when a Government servant can or cannot count service for the purpose of pension or claim pension in case of reemployment. It is no doubt true that Rule 7(2) prohibits sanction of separate pension or gratuity for the period of reemployment when a superannuated Government servant after retirement is reemployed. This is however subject to the exception contained in Rule 19, which permits Government servant who is reemployed in a civil post to draw military pension or retain gratuity. In such a case person, who is military servant, is entitled to draw two pensions with all other benefits. This is however subject to the exception contained in Rule 19, which permits Government servant who is reemployed in a civil post to draw military pension or retain gratuity. In such a case person, who is military servant, is entitled to draw two pensions with all other benefits. Rules 15 and 18 provide for counting of service for the purpose of pension even after transfer from Central service to State service. Conspectus of the Rules referred to herein above would show that grant of two pensions and two separate DAs/DRs is not alien to concept of granting pension and relief to retired employees on their reemployment. Government of India considered question of admissibility of DA/DR to pensioners who are in receipt of two pensions i.e., one from Central Government including military pension and another from State Government. In their O.M.No.13(32)-E.V(A)-/75, dated 21.11.1975, they issued orders clarifying that DA/DR would be admissible on both the pensions. In tune with that office memorandum, State Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 09.8.1976. The same reads as under. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Pensions-Relief to pensioners in receipt of pension from central Government (including Military pension) and State Government-Applicability to pensioners who are in receipt of such pensions-Orders-Issued. FINANCE & PLG.(FINANCE PEN.I) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.350 Dated 9th August, 1976 Read the following:- 1. 1. G.O.Ms.No.7, Finance & Plg. (Fin.Wing.Pen I) Dept., Dated 11.1.1975 2. 2. Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) O.M.No.13(32)-E.V(A)-/75, dt.21.11.1975 3. 3. From the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), New Delhi, O.M.No.F.22(8)EV(A)/75, dated 13.2.1976. 4. 4. From Senior Deputy Accountant-General (Training & Pensions) D.O.Lr.No.PA-III/III/Hyd/240-41/dated17.6.1976. 5. 5. From under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, D.O.Lr.No.E.22(8)-EV(A)/75, dated 22.7.1976. ORDER In the order first read above, relief to pensioners was sanctioned. In this connection, a question has arisen, whether the relief sanctioned in the G.O. first read above is admissible to the pensioners who are in receipt of two pensions i.e. one from the Central Government (including Military Pension) and another from State Government. 1. 2. ORDER In the order first read above, relief to pensioners was sanctioned. In this connection, a question has arisen, whether the relief sanctioned in the G.O. first read above is admissible to the pensioners who are in receipt of two pensions i.e. one from the Central Government (including Military Pension) and another from State Government. 1. 2. The Government of India have issued orders in their O.M. second read above to the effect that in the case of a Central Government pensioner who is in receipt of a pension from a State separately the reliefs in pension will be determined with reference to the amount of pension sanctioned by the Central Government and the Central Government will have no objection if the State Government concerned also allow reliefs in respect of their pensions in accordance with these orders. In these cases, the liability for reliefs in full will be borne by the Central Government in respect of Central Pension and by State Government in respect of State Pension. 2. 3. Government have carefully examined this question and have decided to adopt the Government of India orders in this regard. The following instructions are accordingly issued:- .(i) A State Pensioner who is in receipt of pension from the Central Government (including Military pension) may be allowed full relief on State Pension as sanctioned in the order first read above. .(ii) The liability arising out of this payment shall be borne by the State and not be allocated to the Central. However, it shall be allocable among different States under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Acts in the same manner as the pension. (iii) These orders shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 21.11.1975. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) R. RAJA MANI JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT A perusal of the above would show that in case of Central Government pensioner who is in receipt of pension from State Government separately, DA/DR shall be payable for both the pensions but the liability arising out of such payment shall be borne by the State insofar as State pension is concerned. Though strong reliance is placed by the respondents on this Government Order, in the considered opinion of this Court, the G.O. by itself is helpful to petitioners. Though strong reliance is placed by the respondents on this Government Order, in the considered opinion of this Court, the G.O. by itself is helpful to petitioners. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel by reason of Rule 2(e) of Revised Pension Rules read with Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules, as District Judges Grade-I-in the matter of their pension; petitioners are covered by Revised Pension Rules and are entitled to pension for their services as District Judges as well as DA/DR allowed by Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time. Insofar as their tenure of five years as Upa-Lokayuktas is concerned, Revised Pension Rules would not apply to them. They would be governed by the provisions of Lokayukta Act especially Subsections (4) and (5) of Section 5, and Lokayukta Rules especially 2(i) read with Rule 6. As pointed out earlier, allowances, salary and pension payable and other conditions of service of Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta shall be as those of Chief Justice/Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and shall not be varied to the disadvantage after appointment. Therefore it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions-insofar as pension is concerned; payable to High Court Judges under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (hereafter, Judges Act). As per Section 2(g) of Judges Act, "Judge" means a Judge of the High Court and includes, Chief Justice, an acting Chief Justice, an additional Judge and an acting Judge of the High Court. Section 2(gg) describes, "Pension" means a pension of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of a Judge and includes any gratuity or other sum or sums so payable by way of death or retirement benefits. "Service for pension" as per Section 2(h) includes actual service and time taken for each period of leave on full allowances. Section 13A provides for salaries of the Judges. Pension payable to Judges is dealt with in Sections 14 to 19 and 21. Section 14 deals with pension payable to Judges, who are not members of Indian Civil Service (ICS) and who have not held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State. Thus, Section 14 applies to those Judges, who are elevated from the Bar. Pension payable to Judges is dealt with in Sections 14 to 19 and 21. Section 14 deals with pension payable to Judges, who are not members of Indian Civil Service (ICS) and who have not held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State. Thus, Section 14 applies to those Judges, who are elevated from the Bar. Section 15 deals with pension payable to members of ICS and those who hold pensionable post under the Union or a State, that is to say, District Judges. Pension payable to Judges elevated from the Bar (hereafter referred to as, Part-I Judges) is regulated by provisions in Part-I of the first schedule to Judges Act and pension payable to Judges elevated from the category of District Judges (hereafter referred to as, Part-III Judges) is regulated by Part-III of the first schedule. The method of computation for these two categories of Judges differs. Judges whose pension is regulated by Part-I are entitled for pension, which shall be Rs.16,725/-per annum for each completed year of service subject to maximum pension of Rs.2,34,000/- per annum. Pension is calculated based on completed years of service, which is treated as "service for pension" as defined in Section 2(h) of Judges Act. Calculation and computation of pension for Part-III Judges is different. Before elevation, these Judges are governed by State Pension Rules and if they had not been appointed as Judges of High Court, they would have been entitled for pension as per the State Pension Rules. Taking this into consideration, Parliament has prescribed slightly different procedure for computation of pension for Part-III Judges. Paragraph 2 of Part-III is relevant, which reads as under. 2. Thepension payable to such a Judge shall be: (a) the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules of his service if he had not been appointed as a Judge, his service as a Judge being treated as service therein for the purpose of calculating that pension; and .(b) a special additional pension of Rs.7,800/-per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pension. Provided that the pension under clause (a) and the additional pension under clause (b) together shall in no case exceed Rs.2,70,000/- per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs.2,34,000/-per annum in the case of any other Judge. Part III Judges, after retirement, are entitled to two kinds of pension. Provided that the pension under clause (a) and the additional pension under clause (b) together shall in no case exceed Rs.2,70,000/- per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs.2,34,000/-per annum in the case of any other Judge. Part III Judges, after retirement, are entitled to two kinds of pension. One, as per Revised Pension Rules, as if he had not been appointed as a Judge of High Court. That is to say, pension rules, which regulate payment of pension to District Judge, will be basis for calculating pension. In addition to this, as per Paragraph 2(b) of Part-II of the First Schedule to Judges Act, he is entitled to special additional pension annually for each completed year of service as Judge of High Court. That is to say, if a District Judge who has completed ten years of service as such before elevation and discharges office of High Court Judge for another ten years, he shall be entitled for payment of pension as per State Rules for the entire service of twenty years. In addition to that he shall be paid special additional pension for ten years during which he discharged functions of High Court Judge. Though aggregate pension is paid treating as one pension, in effect, while calculating pension, pension payable as District Judge and pension and special additional pension for the service as High Court Judge are computed separately. But when comes to payment of DA/DR, the same is paid on aggregate pension. This means DA/DR is also paid on pension to which District Judge is entitled to as per ordinary rules of service. Thus it is the fact that a District Judge (elevated as High Court Judge) is paid pension and DA, is not a bar for him to claim DA/DR when special additional pension is added to aggregate pension. Though Part-III Judges are paid aggregate pension and DA/DR, while calculating pension, two pensions are determined separately. This, in our mind, indicates that a District Judge is entitled for pension and DA/DR as a District Judge as well as special additional pension and DA/DR thereon as High Court. This would belie any contention that DA/DR is not payable on second pension. As noticed supra, as per Section 5(5) of Lokayukta Act, allowances and pension payable to Upa-Lokayukta shall be the same as that of a Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This would belie any contention that DA/DR is not payable on second pension. As noticed supra, as per Section 5(5) of Lokayukta Act, allowances and pension payable to Upa-Lokayukta shall be the same as that of a Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Logically therefore District Judge Gr.I, who is appointed as Upa-Lokayukta, would be entitled to pension as per Part-III of Judges Act. That is the reason why Rule 12 of Lokayukta Rules prescribes that DA payable to Upa-Lokayukta shall be the same as payable to High Court Judges and as per Rule 15 of Lokayukta Rules, he is entitled to gratuity and family pension as applicable to Judges of High Court. That the service conditions insofar as payment of pension/allowance for Upa-Lokayukta shall be the same as that of a Judge of High Court, is emphatically made clear by Rule 6(4) of Lokayukta Rules, which postulates that rules for the time being applicable to Judges of High Court in regard to computation of pension shall apply mutatis mutandis to Upa-Lokayukta. The concept of these Rules would clinchingly show that pension payable to Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 6(2) of Lokayukta Rules is also eligible for payment of DA/DR. That DA/DR is an essential ingredient of pension irrespective of source of payment and that District Judge, who is appointed to pensionable post, after retirement, is also entitled for DA/DR, has been considered by this Court in an unreported judgment in Kona Mohana Rao v Union of India W.P.No.21930 of 1998, dated 05.7.2000, wherein it is laid down as under. It is to be seen that no provision is made with regard to the dearness relief in the rules. But it is an accepted proposition that when the dearness relief is released by the Central Government or State Government from time to time they are being automatically made applicable to the pensioners in relation to the amount of pension drawn by them. Similar situation arose in respect of the Chairman of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in Writ Petition No.6180 of 1997 filed by Justice Upendralal Waghray. In that case also the Writ Petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to release the dearness relief as and when enhanced. There is no acceptable reason in refusing to release the dearness relief to the petitioner in this case. In that case also the Writ Petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to release the dearness relief as and when enhanced. There is no acceptable reason in refusing to release the dearness relief to the petitioner in this case. Admittedly, the petitioner is being paid two pensions and the dearness relief is to be released to the petitioner in proportion to the pension drawn by him. It is immaterial whether the relief is from central source or from State source. No statutory support is laid for denial of dearness relief. The dearness relief is an essential ingredient of the pension and the source of payment is irrelevant. In Justice Upendralal Waghray v Union of India W.P.No.6180 of 1997, dated 21.4.1997, a question arose as to whether a High Court Judge, who is appointed as Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, is entitled for additional pension as Chairman. Answering the question in the affirmative, this Court held. The services of a Judge of a High Court, the benefits attached to it are governed by different provisions altogether particularly to settle pension and pensionary benefits. Then such benefits are to be granted while a Judge serves in any such Tribunal. That is how the two periods for fixing the pension for such Judges has been properly explained by the petitioner, which is accepted by the Central Government supported by a pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the pension will be fixed for the period of a Judge serving in a High Court separately from the pension while serving as Chairman of such a Tribunal. While coming to above conclusion, this Court relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India v Mrs.P.Banerjee JT 1995 (8) 357. In conclusion, for the above reasons, we hold that as the office of Upa-Lokayukta is equated to that of the office of a High Court Judge, Upa-Lokayukta is entitled to DA/DR in addition to pension payable to him as per the provisions of Lokayukta Act and Lokayukta Rules. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are liable to be allowed. We accordingly allow the two writ petitions and direct respondents to sanction and release DA/DR on the pension payable to petitioners for their services as Upa-Lokayukta, from respective dates of remitting office. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are liable to be allowed. We accordingly allow the two writ petitions and direct respondents to sanction and release DA/DR on the pension payable to petitioners for their services as Upa-Lokayukta, from respective dates of remitting office. We however do not wish to make any order either for payment of interest on delayed DR or for costs of these writ petitions.