In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that the family pension guidelines applicable to retired High Court Judges extend to the Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission. The judgment, delivered by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh on October 16, 2024, directs the state government to grant family pension benefits to the spouse of Justice Vinod Chandra Misra, a retired High Court Judge and former Chairperson of the Commission. The court also ordered the payment of interest on delayed pension amounts, reinforcing the comprehensive application of judicial pension laws.
Background
Justice Vinod Chandra Misra, who retired from the Allahabad High Court in January 2008, was appointed Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission the following day. He served in this capacity until September 2012. The State Law Commission Act, 2010, and the corresponding rules enacted in 2011, govern the pension entitlements of the Chairperson. Justice Misra’s claim for pension equivalent to that of a retired Chief Justice, including family pension benefits for his spouse, was initially rejected by the state government. This led him to file Writ – A No. 20593 of 2015, which resulted in the approval of his personal pension but not the family pension claim, prompting the current writ petition.
Legal Issues
1. Whether the Family Pension Provisions for High Court Judges Apply to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission:
– The central issue was whether the family pension guidelines applicable to High Court Judges under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, should also be applied to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission.
2. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Pension Payment:
– Justice Misra sought interest on the delayed pension payment, arguing that the delay in processing his pension was unjustified and violated his statutory rights.
Observations by the Court
1. Family Pension Applicability:
– The court underscored that once a retired judge serving as the Chairperson is granted a pension equivalent to that of a retired Chief Justice, the related entitlements, including family pension, must logically extend to their spouse.
– The court emphasized that the definition of “pension” under the relevant laws encompasses “family pension.” It stated: “The term ‘pension’ under the law includes ‘family pension,’ and there is no rationale to deny it when the petitioner’s entitlement to pension equivalent to that of a Chief Justice is already recognized.”
– Relying on the concept of “legislation by reference,” the court noted that Rule 4(5) of the State Law Commission rules and Section 2(gg) of the Judges Act include “family pension” as part of the broader pension entitlement. It added: “Once legislation by reference is established, the provisions applicable to High Court Judges regarding pension and family pension must be extended to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission.”
2. Interest on Delayed Pension Payment:
– On the issue of interest, the court observed that pension is a statutory right and its delayed payment constitutes a deprivation of the petitioner’s rightful benefits. The judges noted: “Payment of pension is a statutory right arising from past service, and any delay in its disbursal without reasonable cause demands compensation.”
– As a result, the court directed the state to pay 8% interest per annum on the arrears of pension from September 11, 2012 (the date of Justice Misra’s retirement from the Commission), to the actual date of payment.
Decision
The Allahabad High Court ruled in favour of Justice Misra, ordering:
– The inclusion of family pension provisions in Justice Misra’s Pension Payment Order (PPO), ensuring that his spouse receives benefits equivalent to the spouse of a retired Chief Justice upon Justice Misra’s demise.
– The payment of 8% interest on delayed pension from September 11, 2012, to the actual payment date.
– Compliance with the court’s orders within three months.
The court’s decision sets a precedent for judicial officers serving in quasi-judicial roles like the State Law Commission, establishing that pension laws for High Court Judges must be applied comprehensively, including family pension benefits.
– The state further argued that there was no statutory obligation to pay interest on delayed pension.
– Case Title: Justice Vinod Chandra Misra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
– Case Number: Writ – A No. 7743 of 2019
– Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh
– Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate V.K. Singh, assisted by Prakash Chandra Shukla
– Counsel for Respondent: Kritika Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
