Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 77 (KER)

T. Saraswathy v. State of Kerala

2018-01-19

P.N.RAVINDRAN, R.NARAYANA PISHARADI

body2018
JUDGMENT : P.N. Ravindran, J. The appellant is the supplemental second petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 6284 of 2010, a writ petition filed by her husband (Professor (Dr.) S.Balaraman) who was a Member of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission during the period from 16.12.1998 to 15.12.2003. During the last two months of his tenure, he was also the acting Chairperson of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' for short. More than two years after demitting office, he submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 15.01.2006 to the Secretary to Government, Law Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, with a request that sanction may be accorded to revise his pensionery benefits with effect from 16.12.2003, taking into account his service in the Commission. About four years thereafter, he filed W.P.(C)No.6284 of 2010 in this court on 24.02.2010, seeking the following reliefs: (i). to issue a declaration that petitioner is entitled to special additional pension under clause 2(b) Part III of High Court Judges (Condition of Service) Act from 16.12.2003 on wards in view of Rule 11 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission Rules. (ii). to issue a declaration that the delay in disbursing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner is culpable and hence he is entitled to penal interest for the delayed payment of his pensionary benefits at the rate of 12% per annum. (iii). to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents to disburse special additional pension to the petitioner with arrears from 16.12.2003 with 12% interest. (iv). to issue such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. He contended in the writ petition that as the salary and allowances and other service conditions of a Member of the Commission are the same as that of a Judge of the High Court, he is entitled to additional pension as provided under Clause 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Reliance was placed on Rules 9 and 11 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission Rules, 1998, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) in support of the said contention. Reliance was placed on Rules 9 and 11 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission Rules, 1998, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) in support of the said contention. The State of Kerala resisted the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit, wherein it inter alia contended that as the Rules do not stipulate grant of pension for the service rendered by the Chairperson or a Member of the Commission, the claim of the petitioner is not tenable. It was contended that the petitioner is not entitled to additional pension, taking into account his service as a Member of the Commission, over and above the pension sanctioned to him for the service rendered by him as Registrar of the University of Calicut and as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The State even contended that it has not received Ext.P3 representation stated to have been submitted by the petitioner. 3. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner passed away and thereupon, his wife Smt. P. Saraswathy, got herself impleaded as the supplemental second petitioner as per order passed on 23.07.2013 on I.A.No.9745 of 2013. W.P.(C)No.6284 of 2010 was thereafter heard and dismissed by judgment delivered on 02.02.2017. The learned single Judge held that in the absence of any stipulation in the Rules to the effect that the service rendered by a Member of the Commission is pensionable, the claim raised in the writ petition is not tenable. The supplemental petitioner in W.P. (C)No. 6284 of 2010 has, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. 4. We heard Sri. R. Reji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Sri.R.Reji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended, referring to and relying on Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules that in the light of the stipulations therein, the writ petitioner is entitled to pension applicable to a Judge of the High Court under Chapter III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and the Rules made there under. Learned counsel contended that as salary, leave, leave travel concession and travel allowances have been specifically dealt with in Rules 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Rules, the words “other conditions of service” occurring in Rule 9 of the Rules would take in not only rent free accommodation, conveyance facilities and medical facilities specifically referred to therein, but also other conditions of service for the time being applicable to a Judge of the High Court. Learned counsel contended that as pension is also a condition of service for High Court Judges, the learned single Judge erred in holding that the writ petitioner is not entitled to pension as applicable to Judges of the High Court. Learned counsel also relied on Rule 11 of the Rules to substantiate his contentions in that regard. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala submitted that neither the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 nor the Rules framed there under contemplate grant of pension to a person who has rendered service as Chairperson or Member of the Commission and therefore, merely for the reason that the provisions contained in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed there under are made applicable to the Chairperson and Members of the Commission, a Member of the Commission who has not been a Judge of the High Court prior to his appointment as such Member, cannot claim the pension applicable to a Judge of the High Court. Learned Government Pleader further contended that even in the case of Judges of the High Court, the service rendered by him or her as the Chairperson or Member of the Commission is not pensionable, unlike in the case of the Lok Ayukta where there is a specific stipulation that the service rendered as Lok Ayukta or Upa- Lok Ayukta is pensionable. 6. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is relevant in this context to note that in Ext.P3 representation, the petitioner had not claimed pension under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Condition of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed there under. He had only claimed pension for the service rendered by him as a member of the Commission. It is relevant in this context to note that in Ext.P3 representation, the petitioner had not claimed pension under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Condition of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed there under. He had only claimed pension for the service rendered by him as a member of the Commission. The text of Ext.P3 letter reads as follows: “I retired at the age of 55 on the A.N. of 30.11.1994 as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Cochin University of Science and Technology, on deputation from the post of Registrar of the University of Calicut. As per the order first cited (copy enclosed) I have been granted pensionary benefits from 1.12.1994. In the G.O. Second cited, I was appointed Member of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission for five year and I continued there as Member from 16.12.1998 to 16.10.2003 and vide the G.O. under reference 3, as Acting Chairperson of the Commission from 17.10.2003 to 15.12.2003. I retired from there on the A.N. of 15.12.2003. My last pay was 57880/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Only)/Basic Pay Rs.30000/- + DA Rs.17700/- + HRA Rs.10000/- + CCA Rs.180/-. I request that sanction may please be accorded for the revision of my pensionary benefits from 16.12.2003, taking into account my new service in the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, at the earliest.” 7. A reading of Ext.P3 representation would indicate that the demand of the petitioner was to revise his pensionary benefitis taking into account his service as a Member of the Commission. Even in the said representation, he had no claim that the service rendered by him as a Member of the Commission is pensionable service. It was several years later that he filed the instant writ petition raising a contention that in view of Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules, he is entitled to pension in terms of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed there under, in addition to the pension for his past service as Registrar of the University of Calicut and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. It is relevant in this context to note that the writ petitioner was formerly working as Registrar of the University of Calicut. It is relevant in this context to note that the writ petitioner was formerly working as Registrar of the University of Calicut. While he was working as Registrar of the University of Calicut, he was appointed on deputation as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Cochin University of Science and Technology. While serving as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Cochin University of Science and Technology, he attained the age of superannuation (55 years) on 30.11.1994. Thereupon, retirement benefits were sanctioned and disbursed to him and he was drawing pension from the University of Calicut. It is not clear from the averments in the writ petition as to whether the service rendered by the writ petitioner as Pro-Vice-Chancellor has also been taken into account for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. 8. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), which provides for the constitution of the National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commissions does not in express terms stipulate that the service rendered by the Chairperson and the Members of the National Human Rights Commission or the State Human Rights Commission as the case may be, is pensionable. Section 40 of the Act stipulates as follows: 40. Power of the Central Government to make rules: (1) The Central Government may, by a notification, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely- (a) the salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of Chairperson and Members under Section 8. (b) the conditions subject to which other administrative, technical and scientific staff may be appointed by the Commission and the salaries and allowances of officers and other staff under sub-section (3) of section 11; (c) any other power of a civil court required to be prescribed under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 13; (d) the form in which the annual statement of accounts is to be prepared by the Commission under sub-section (1) of section 34 and (e) any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed. (3) Every rule made under this act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. 9. Section 41 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules to provide for the salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission under Section 26. The learned single Judge has in the impugned judgment held that, neither Section 22 of the Act which deals with the appointment of Chairperson and Members of the Commission nor Section 26 of the Act, which deals with the terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission stipulate for payment of pension, to the Chairperson and Members of the Commission and therefore, Section 41 of the Act will not empower the State Government to make a rule providing for payment of pensionary benefits to them. It was held that the rules could provide for only those conditions of service contemplated under the Act and for no other. The learned single Judge proceeded to hold that the residuary provision in Rule 11 of the Rules would take in only those conditions of service contemplated under the Act. 10. Section 22 of the Act does not contain any stipulation regarding payment of salary and allowances or pension to the Chairperson and Members of the Commission. It does not even refer to the service conditions of the Chairperson and Members. Section 26 of the Act on the other hand deals with salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members. Section 26 of the Act is extracted below: 26. Terms and conditions of service of Chairperson and Members of State Commissions. Section 26 of the Act on the other hand deals with salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members. Section 26 of the Act is extracted below: 26. Terms and conditions of service of Chairperson and Members of State Commissions. The salaries and allowances payable to, and other terms and conditions of service of, the Chairperson and Members shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government: Provided that neither the salary and allowances nor the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson or a Member shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. 11. Section 26 of the Act stipulates that the salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service, of the Chairperson and Members, shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. The proviso to Section 26 of the Act stipulates that, neither the salary and allowances nor the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson or a Member shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. It is in the background of the aforesaid provision that this court will have to consider the effect of Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules. We shall now refer to rules 4 to 11 of the Rules which read as follows: 4. It is in the background of the aforesaid provision that this court will have to consider the effect of Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules. We shall now refer to rules 4 to 11 of the Rules which read as follows: 4. Salary- (1) There shall be paid to (a) the Chairperson, the salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances of the Chief Justice of a High Court: (b) a Member, the salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances of a Judge of a High Court: Provided that if the Chairperson or a Member at the time of his appointment is in receipt of, or being eligible to receive any pension and had elected to draw or receive the pension (other than disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service under the Government of the Union or 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 or to be drawn or availed of by him. (2) A person, who, on the date of his appointment as a member of the Commission, was in the service of the Government of India or the Government of Kerala as a District Judge or an officer, shall be deemed to have retired from service with effect from the date on which he enters upon his office as a Member of the Commission. 5. 5. Leave - (1) A person, on appointment as Chairperson or as a Member shall be entitled to leave as follows: (i) Earned leave @ fifteen days for every completed Calender year of service or a part thereof; (ii) half pay leave on medical certificate or private affairs @ twenty days in respect of each completed year of service and the leave salary for half pay leave shall be equivalent to half of the leave salary admissible during the earned leave; (iii) leave on half pay can be commuted to full pay leave at the discretion of the Chairperson or a member, if it is taken on medical ground and is supported by a medical certificate from the Competent Medical Authority; (iv) extraordinary leave without pay and allowances up to a maximum of one hundred and eighty days in one term of office. (2) On the expiry of his term of office in the Commission, the Chairperson and Members shall be entitled to receive cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of earned leave standing to their credit subject to the condition that the maximum of leave encashed under this sub-rule or at the time of retirement from previous service, as the case may be, or taken together, shall not in any case exceed 240 days. (3) The Chairperson and the Members shall be entitled to receive dearness allowance as admissible on the leave salary under sub-rule (2), at the rates in force on the date of the relinquishment of their office in the Commission. Provided that he shall not be entitled to city compensatory allowance or any other allowance on such leave. (4) If a sitting Judge of a High Court is appointed as a Member, then, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, Chapter II of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 shall apply to him upto the date of his superannuation as a sitting Judge of a High Court and thereafter he shall be entitled to leave in accordance with the provisions of sub-rules (1) to (3) of this rule. 6. Leave Travel Concession - The Chairperson and the members shall be entitled to leave travel concession at the same rates and at the same scale and on the same conditions as are applicable to a Judge of a High Court. 7. 6. Leave Travel Concession - The Chairperson and the members shall be entitled to leave travel concession at the same rates and at the same scale and on the same conditions as are applicable to a Judge of a High Court. 7. Authority competent to grant leave - The power to grant or refuse leave to the Chairperson or a Member and to revoke or curtail leave granted to him, shall vest in the Governor. 8. Travel allowances - The Chairperson and the Members, while on tour (including the journey undertaken to join the Commission or on the expiry of his term with the Commission to proceed to his home town) shall be entitled to travel allowances, allowances for transportation of personal effects and other similar matters and daily allowances at the same rates as are admissible to a judge of the High Court of Kerala. 9. Other conditions of service - The conditions of service relating to provision for rent free accommodation, conveyance facilities, medical facilities and such other conditions of service as are, for the time being, applicable to a Judge of a High Court under Chapter IV of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the rules made there under shall, so far as may, apply to the Chairperson and the Members. 10. Right to subscribe to General Provident Fund- Every person holding office as Chairperson or a Member shall be entitled to subscribe to the General Provident Fund (Kerala) 11. Residuary Provision - The conditions of service of the Chairperson and the Members for which no express provision is made in these rules shall be determined by the rules and orders for the time being applicable to a Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court, as the case may be. 12. It is no where stipulated in the Act or the Rules that the service rendered by the Chairperson or Member of the Commission is pensionable. In fact the salary paid to a pensioner who is appointed as the Chairperson or Member of the Commission will be reduced by the amount of pension and also various other components of the pensionary benefits received by him. In fact the salary paid to a pensioner who is appointed as the Chairperson or Member of the Commission will be reduced by the amount of pension and also various other components of the pensionary benefits received by him. It is in the back ground of these facts that we will have to consider the question whether Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules would enable the petitioner to contend that as pension is paid to a Judge of the High Court, he is entitled to pension at the rate applicable to a Judge of the High Court. We are afraid, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the claim made by the petitioner is untenable. In our considered opinion, the words “such other conditions of service” occurring in Rule 9 can relate only to the benefits available to a sitting Judge of the High Court and not to the pensionary benefits. It is not stipulated in the Act or the Rules that the service rendered by the Chairperson or Member of the Commission for the term for which he is appointed, is pensionable service. The petitioner has no case that Judges of the High Court who are appointed as Chairperson or Member of the Commission, are entitled to pensionary benefits for the service rendered by them as Chairperson or Member. In the absence of a prescription to the effect that the service will be pensionable, merely for the reason that there is a reference in the Rules to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed there under, such service will not become pensionable. Rule 11 also cannot therefore in our opinion come to the petitioner’s rescue. If the Act or the Rules had provided for payment of pensionery benefits for the service rendered by the Chairperson or the Members, then and then alone, the petitioner's claim would be tenable. 13. We are persuaded to take such a view also for the reason that unlike the service rendered by the Chairperson or Member of the Commission, there is a specific stipulation in the Kerala Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayuktas (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 that the service rendered by the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta will be pensionable. 13. We are persuaded to take such a view also for the reason that unlike the service rendered by the Chairperson or Member of the Commission, there is a specific stipulation in the Kerala Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayuktas (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 that the service rendered by the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta will be pensionable. Sub section (4) of Section 5 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, stipulates that, the salary and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta shall be such, as may be prescribed. In proviso (a) to sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, it is stipulated that in prescribing the salary and allowances and other conditions of service of the Lok Ayukta, regard shall be had to the salary and allowances and other conditions of service of a Supreme Court Judge or of the Chief Justice of a High Court, as the case may be. In proviso (b) it is stipulated that in prescribing the salary and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, regard shall be had to the salary and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of a Judge of a High Court.In the third proviso it is stipulated that the salary and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. The effect of the aforesaid stipulations is that while prescribing the conditions of service of the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayukta, regard shall be had to the salary and allowances payable to and the other conditions of service of a Judge of the High Court. Such a stipulation is singularly lacking in the Act. In sub section (5) of Section 5 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, it is stipulated that the expenditure in respect of salaries and allowances of the Lok Ayukta and the Upa- Lok Ayuktas and the administrative expenses of the office of the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to, or in respect of, persons serving in that office, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State. We shall, for the sake of convenience, extract Section 5 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, in full. We shall, for the sake of convenience, extract Section 5 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, in full. 5. Term of office and other conditions of service of Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta- (1) A person appointed as Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office: Provided that- (a) the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, by writing under his hand and seal addressed to the Governor, resign his office, (b) the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may be removed from his office in the manner provided in Section 6. (2) A person who holds office as the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall, on the expiration of his term of office, be ineligible for re-appointment to that office. (3) On ceasing to hold office, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa. Lok Ayukta shall not be eligible for further employment to any office of profit under the Government or in any authority, Corporation, Company, Society or University referred to in item (vii) of clause (o) of Section 2. (4) The salary and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall be such, as may be prescribed. Provided that- (a) in prescribing the salary and allowances and other conditions of service of the Lok Ayukta, regard shall be had to the salary and allowances and other conditions of service of a Supreme Court Judge or of the Chief Justice of a High Court, as the case may be. (b) In prescribing the salary and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, regard shall be had to the salary and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of a Judge of a High Court; Provided further that the salary and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (5) The expenditure in respect of salaries and allowances of the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta and the administrative expenses of the office of the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to, or in respect of, persons serving in that office, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State”. 14. (5) The expenditure in respect of salaries and allowances of the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta and the administrative expenses of the office of the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to, or in respect of, persons serving in that office, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State”. 14. Section 23(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 empowers the Government to frame rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Section 23 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, reads as follows: “23(1) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, such rules may provide for,- (a) the authorities to be prescribed under sub-clause (iv) of clause (d) of Section 2; (b) the salary, allowances and pensions payable to, and other conditions of service of the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas' (c) the form and the manner in which a complaint may be made' (d) the powers of a Civil Court which may be exercised by the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 11' (e) the salary, allowances, appointment and other conditions of service of the staff and employees of the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas under sub-section (2) of Section 16' (f) any other manner for which rules have to be or may be made under this Act.” 15. In exercise of the said power, the State Government has framed and issued the Kerala Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayuktas (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999, and it specifically provides for payment of pension for the service rendered by the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayukta. Rule 3 of the said Rules reads as follows: 3. Salary and allowances and other benefits of the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas - The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta appointed, on his assuming charge, becomes entitled to the salary and allowances and other benefits conferred under these rules, including pensionary benefits for the whole of the term for which he is entitled to continue as Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta as the case may. The Lok Ayukta shall be entitled to the same salary and allowances as that of a Supreme Court Judge or the Chief Justice of a High Court. An Upa-Lok Ayukta shall be entitled to the same salary and allowances as that of a Judge of a High Court; Provided that where the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta, at the time of his appointment is in receipt of pension in respect of any previous service, as a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court, his salary in respect of service as Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, shall be reduced- (a) by the amount of that pension, except pension received as freedom fighter, (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 the pension he would have received had he not obtained the facility of commutation. (c) if he has, before such appointment, received a retirement gratuity in respect of such previous service, by the pension equivalent of that gratuity.” 16. The quantum of pension payable to the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayukta is also set out in Rule 9 thereof which reads as follows: “9. Pension - The Lok Ayukta shall be entitled for an annual pension at the rate of Rs.14,630/- for one completed year of service as Lok Ayukta and the Upa- Lok Ayukta shall be entitled for an annual pension @Rs.11,150/- for one completed year of service as Upa- Lok Ayukta. The pension at the above rate shall be added to the pension which he is already getting at the time of joining as the Lok Ayukta or the Upa- Lok Ayukta, to arrive at the pension to which he would be entitled, when he ceases to be a member of the Lok Ayukta or the Upa- Lok Ayukta, as the case may be.” [Provided that the annual pension of those Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayuktas who retired on or after 1st January, 2006 shall be revised as Rs.43.890 and to Rs.34.350 respectively for one completed year of service as Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta as the case may be. There shall be a ceiling to the effect that pension payable to the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta shall not be higher than fifty percent of the pay of the highest post held by them during their entire period. This ceiling shall be applicable only to persons appointed on or after the 6th day of February, 2013] 17. It is evident from the scheme of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, that while the service rendered by the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas is pensionable, the service rendered by the Chairperson and Members of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission is not pensionable. Such a distinction has been drawn, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, having regard to the provisions contained in the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act which empower the Government to frame a rule regulating the conditions of service of the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas including the pension payable to them. As stated in paragraph 13 above, in the case of the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, while prescribing their conditions of service it is stipulated that regard should be had to the salary and allowances payable to and the other conditions of service of the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court, as the case may be. Such a stipulation is singularly lacking in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Rules framed there under. It is only if the service rendered as the Chairperson and or as Member is recognised as pensionable service, the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules made there under come into play. The petitioner has no case that former Chief Justices of this court who had held office as Chairpersons or former Judges of this court who had held office as Members of the Commission were paid pension for the service rendered by them as Chairperson or Member. We are therefore, in agreement with the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner or the appellant cannot claim pension under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 or the Rules framed there under. As stated earlier, the writ petitioner had no such claim in Ext.P3. We are therefore, in agreement with the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner or the appellant cannot claim pension under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 or the Rules framed there under. As stated earlier, the writ petitioner had no such claim in Ext.P3. His claim was only to revise his pensionary benefits taking into account his service as a Member of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no merit in the instant writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.