utory Application No 1 of 1989
IN WP No 16093 of 1984 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
SM Jain SK Jain Ms Pratibha Jain and Pradeep Agarwal for the petitioner
Arun Jaitly Additional Solicitor General Kailash Vasdev and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondent
The following order of the Court was delivered Petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and was elevated as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on July 1 1975
He was transferred to the Delhi High Court from where he retired on July 21 1984
A dispute relating to his pension became the subject matter of a writ petition before this Court and was disposed of on April 9 1985 This Court fixed his pension at Rs 21500 per annum
In the meantime certain changes in the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act1954 were brought about firstly by Central Act 3886 and again by Central Act 2088
Petitioner applied to this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No 1804488 asking for benefits under the Amending Act
This Court by its decision on August 18 1988 refixed petitioner s pension at Rs 41600 per annum with effect from January 1 1986 and at Rs 46100 per annum with effect from November 11986 keeping the two amendments referred to above in view  In paragraph 19 of this Court s order it was stated We refrain from expressing any opinion as to the effect of lifting of the ceiling on the special additional pension at Rs 8000 per annum placed by clause b of paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule
The question really does not arise for our consideration at the moment and is left open
 100 The petitioner has now applied to this Court challenging the ceiling on additional pension appearing in clause b of paragraph 2 of Part III of the first Schedule to the of 1954
The First Schedule Deals with pension of Judges
Judges in High Court are recruited from three sources a from the Bar b Members belonging to the former Indian Civil Service and c Officers of the State Judicial Service
In this case we are concerned with as petitioner had been elevated as a Judge of High Court from the Rajasthan State Judicial Service
In respect of such a Judge the pension payable is prescribed to be a the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules of his service if he had not been appointed 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 or Rs1600 per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pensionbut in no case such additional pension together with the additional or special pension if any to which he is entitled under the ordinary rule of his service exceed Rs8000 per annum
Provided that the pension under clause a and additional pension under clause b together shall in no case exceed Rs54000 per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs 48000 per annum in case of any other Judge
 Since this Court had fixed the pension at Rs 46100 and petitioner s claim for being put at par with other Judges by fixing his pension at Rs 48000 per annum had not been accepted petitioner has approached this Court challenging the ceiling of Rs 8000
According to the petitioner he had put in nine years of completed service as a Judge and on the basis of the provision for special additional pension of Rs 1600 per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pension he was entitled to Rs14400 but the limit in the proviso would have the effect of fixing ceiling at Rs 48000 per annum
There was no justification to introduce a further ceiling of Rs 8000 per annum irrespective of the years of completed service rendered and allow a discrimination to operate
Once the proviso has a limit which meets the purpose there is no basis for the further limit of Rs 8000 as contained in paragraph 2 above
The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Law and Justice sought to justify the limit by referring to cases of Central Civil Service Officers retiring as Secretaries to Government where full credit was not being given for the entire period of service rendered and aceiling was fixed
Such a ceiling actually is fixed in respect of all the three situations covered by the First Schedule
A Member of the Bar with 14 years of completed service out of which six years are served as a Chief Justice or as a Judge of the Supreme Court gets the maximum pension of Rs 54000 and in the event of his retirement without becoming Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court his pension entitlement is Rs 48000 per annum
Similar is the provision relating to the members of the Indian Civil Service who were earlier elevated as Judges
It is the contention of the petitioner that once a ceiling limit was fixed as contained in the proviso of the Third Part there was no further justification for the Paragraph 2b ceiling
We find full force in the submission
The reasons which weighed with this Court on the earlier occasion for enhancing the petitioner s pension fully apply to the present aspect
The ceiling of Rs 8000 therefore is not necessary to be imposed and if that is applied a situation giving rise to the application of article 14 of the Constitution does arise
In fact the presence of the proviso clearly brings out the intention that no  sought to be made between Judges recruited from the different sources for the matter of the ceiling on pension
We therefore modify the order of this Court fixing petitioner s pension at Rs 46100 and require his pension to be fixed at Rs 48000 per annum by holding that the ceiling in paragraph 2b of Part III of the First Schedule is unsustainable under article 14 of the Constitution and would not be operative
We direct that petitioner s pension from November 1 1986 shall be fixed at Rs 48000 a year
We would make it clear that as we have held that paragraph 2b is ultra vires it will follow that all cases to which the present situation applied should be revised by the Union of India without requiring representations or applications from the retired Judges concerned
There would be no order as to costs
VPR Petition allowed


Summary:
Grih Kalyan Kendra is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1960
It is a welfare organization working under the aegis of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Ministry of Home Affairs
Its object is to establish Kendras to help needy Government servants especially those belonging to the lower income group by providing to their dependents opportunity of gainful work and training during their leisure time so that the dependents of such Government servants may be able to supplement to the meagre income of the family and to acquire skill and experience for obtaining employment elsewhere
In furtherance of this object the kendra has set up nursery centres craft centres and creches etc
In Delhi and other cities where the work of imparting necessary training is carried on
The management of the Kalayan Kendras vests in the Board which consists of officers of the Department of Personnel and in order to augment its resources the Ministry gives grant to the kendras
The terms and conditions or tenure of service of its employees have not been regulated by any Rules framed by the kendra
The staff of the Kendras fall in two categories viz i regular staff taken on deputation from other central government offices who draw their salaries in regular scales of pay with the deputation and other allowances as admissible to the central government employees and ii employees employed at the various centres of the kendra on ad hoc basis some of whom have been working an fixed salary called honorarium while others are working on the piece rate wages without any gratuity or pension or Provident fund
The Workers  Union of the Kendra has filed this writ petition for a declaration that the kendra wherein the workers are employed is a State  within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and such it is prayed by them that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay regular pay scale on par with other employees 16 performing similar work under the Union of India New Delhi Municipal Committee and other Departments of the Delhi Administration as according to them wages paid to them are low as compared to the employees performing identical duties in the said Departments
Their contention is that the Kendra being a State  the respodents are under constitutional obligation to pay them higher scale of pay prescribed for the Government Departments on the principle equal pay for equal work
They have raised claim to pension gratuity and provident fund etc
The respondents contest their claim on the plea that the employees working in the kendra are not regular employees and the duties performed by them are not comparable to any of the employees working under NDMC or any other DEPARTMENT OF THE Delhi Administration or Union of India the Status of the Kendra being unique
Dismissing the writ petition the Court HELD There being no other Government or semi Government employees who can be regarded even broadly as being situated similarly as the employees of the Kendra the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be said to be violated by the payment of mere honorarium to these employees
27E The findings recorded by the former Chief Justice to whom the matter was referred earlier clearly shows that there has been no discrimination as the petitioners are not being discriminated from those who are situated equally
The petitioner s claim for the benefit of equal pay for equal work therefore must fail
Their claim for the issue of direction to the respondents to provide for the pension gratuity and provident fund for the employees of the Grih Kalyan must also fail
27H 28A B Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs International Airport Authority of India and ors
   PK Ramachandra lyer  Ors
vs Union of India and Ors
   BS Minhas vs
Indian Statistical Institute and Ors   Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad vs Union of india and ors
   Surya Narain Yadav  Ors
vs Bihar State Electricity Board and Others   Randhir Singh vs Union of India   Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P Dhirendra Chamoli vs State of UP1986 1 SCC 637 Engineer in Chief CPWD RD Gupta vs Lt Governor Delhi Administration   Bhagwan Dass vs
State of 17 Haryana 1987 4 SCC 634 Jaipal vs State of Haryana 1988 3 SCC 354 Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and Ors
vs State of karnataka and Others   Federation Of all India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers vs Union of India 19890 3 SCC 1 referred to