Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 834 (HP)

D. D. Sharma v. State of H. P.

2014-07-04

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, V.K.SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Heard. In view of the order dated 8.10.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in IA No. 223 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989, All India Judges Association & others Vs. Union of India & others, text whereof is as under, the controversy involved in this writ petition is no more res intergra:- “UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER IA No. 223/2007 Put up next week. IA No. 5 of 2009 in IA No. 244 in WP (c) No. 1022/1989 The applicants in this IA are judicial officers who retired after January 01, 1996, but prior to January 2006. They are aggrieved by the recommendation of Justice Padmanabhan Committee, as contained in paragraph 31 of its report. Paragraph 31 of the recommendations of the Committee, insofar as it is relevant, is as under:- “Para 31: The recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission with respect to past pensioners are given in paragraph 23.18 which are as under: 1) The revised pension of the retired judicial officers should be 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time. xx xx xx ” Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate appearing for the applicants, pointed out that the Padmanabhan Committee, apparently due to oversight, fixed the revised pension of the concerned judicial officers at 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time. Consequently, as a result of the revision, the concerned judicial officers are getting as pension an amount which is lower than what they earlier received before revision. The grievance of the applicants appears to be justified and it is significant to note that both the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, in their respective responses, have supported the case of the applicants. Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned amicus curiae, also submitted that there was evidently some error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee. We, accordingly, accept the prayer of the applicants and allow this IA in terms of prayer clause (i) of the application. IA No. 5 stands disposed of.” 2. Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned amicus curiae, also submitted that there was evidently some error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee. We, accordingly, accept the prayer of the applicants and allow this IA in terms of prayer clause (i) of the application. IA No. 5 stands disposed of.” 2. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order dated 8.10.2012 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in IA No. 223 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989. Consequently, pension of the petitioner shall be governed accordingly on and with effect from 1.1.2006. The respondents are directed to take follow up action within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authority, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall also be payable on the arrears of pension, if any, due to the petitioner in terms of this judgment.