The Bombay High Court last week held that a pension scheme brought into force through a government resolution will not be binding on judicial officers in the State..The Court was hearing a PIL which sought, among other things, to challenge a government resolution dated 31st October, 2005 which introduces “Defined Contribution Pension Scheme” for government servants who are recruited on or after November 1, 2005. This scheme would be applicable to officers of the subordinate judiciary in Maharashtra..The scheme sought to make mandatory a two-tier contribution system, by which 10% of the government officer’s salary would be deducted every month. This amount would be kept in a non-withdrawable Pension Tier-I account..Counsel for petitioner Vihar Duve, Jalan Sandeep argued that the government resolution was in violation of Supreme Court orders governing pension of judicial officers. The Maharashtra State Judges Association, represented by Senior Advocate Atul G Damle, backed this stand. Former Advocate General (now Justice) Rohit Deo had argued the matter for the state..By way of background, back in 1993, the Supreme Court, in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. had directed the setting up of pay commissions to determine pension and other service conditions of judicial officers. Subsequently, the Centre introduced the National Judicial Pay Commission chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice KJ Shetty..Later, another Committee headed by former Madras High Court judge Justice E Padmanabhan would be formed to look into the salary and pension of judicial officers. The Supreme Court had directed the implementation of the same with effect from January 1, 2006..It was argued before the High Court that the pensionary benefits payable to judicial officers of the State were governed by the aforementioned bodies, backed by directions issued from time to time by the Supreme Court, and that the passing of this government resolution was illegal..Agreeing with the petitioners, a Bench of Justices AS Oka and AK Menon held,.“Therefore, the action of applying the impugned Government Resolution to the Judicial Officers is completely contrary to the directions of the Apex Court. In fact, the impugned Government Resolution is not at all applicable to the Judicial Officers who are appointed from November 1, 2005….…The State Government cannot affect the quantum of salary of Judicial Officers in this fashion by providing for a deduction of 10% of basic salary plus dearness pay from the salary of a Judicial Officer. Making of such deduction…will be a breach of the orders of the Apex Court.”.The Bench also held that it would be the prerogative of judicial officers to continue under the new scheme, should they choose to. Such an option is required to be exercised within two months. For those who wish to opt out, the entire contribution from their salary made thus far would be transferred from the non-withdrawable Tier-I account to the withdrawable Tier-II account..The matter has now been placed before Justices Oka and Riyaz Chagla for directions..Read the order:
The Bombay High Court last week held that a pension scheme brought into force through a government resolution will not be binding on judicial officers in the State..The Court was hearing a PIL which sought, among other things, to challenge a government resolution dated 31st October, 2005 which introduces “Defined Contribution Pension Scheme” for government servants who are recruited on or after November 1, 2005. This scheme would be applicable to officers of the subordinate judiciary in Maharashtra..The scheme sought to make mandatory a two-tier contribution system, by which 10% of the government officer’s salary would be deducted every month. This amount would be kept in a non-withdrawable Pension Tier-I account..Counsel for petitioner Vihar Duve, Jalan Sandeep argued that the government resolution was in violation of Supreme Court orders governing pension of judicial officers. The Maharashtra State Judges Association, represented by Senior Advocate Atul G Damle, backed this stand. Former Advocate General (now Justice) Rohit Deo had argued the matter for the state..By way of background, back in 1993, the Supreme Court, in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. had directed the setting up of pay commissions to determine pension and other service conditions of judicial officers. Subsequently, the Centre introduced the National Judicial Pay Commission chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice KJ Shetty..Later, another Committee headed by former Madras High Court judge Justice E Padmanabhan would be formed to look into the salary and pension of judicial officers. The Supreme Court had directed the implementation of the same with effect from January 1, 2006..It was argued before the High Court that the pensionary benefits payable to judicial officers of the State were governed by the aforementioned bodies, backed by directions issued from time to time by the Supreme Court, and that the passing of this government resolution was illegal..Agreeing with the petitioners, a Bench of Justices AS Oka and AK Menon held,.“Therefore, the action of applying the impugned Government Resolution to the Judicial Officers is completely contrary to the directions of the Apex Court. In fact, the impugned Government Resolution is not at all applicable to the Judicial Officers who are appointed from November 1, 2005….…The State Government cannot affect the quantum of salary of Judicial Officers in this fashion by providing for a deduction of 10% of basic salary plus dearness pay from the salary of a Judicial Officer. Making of such deduction…will be a breach of the orders of the Apex Court.”.The Bench also held that it would be the prerogative of judicial officers to continue under the new scheme, should they choose to. Such an option is required to be exercised within two months. For those who wish to opt out, the entire contribution from their salary made thus far would be transferred from the non-withdrawable Tier-I account to the withdrawable Tier-II account..The matter has now been placed before Justices Oka and Riyaz Chagla for directions..Read the order: