IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 12248 of 2005 Date of Decision: 7.4.2011. K.R. Mahajan --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 2. CWP No. 9707 of 2004 M.S. Luna --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saqib Ali Khan & Mr. T.N. Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S. Cheema, Advocate. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) With common questions of law and similarity of facts, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners in these writ petitions were serving as District/Additional District & Sessions Judge in the State of Punjab. Petitioner Mr. M.S. Luna (CWP No. 9707 of 2004) retired as District & Sessions Judge from Jalandhar on 30.4.1990, whereas Mr. K.R. Mahajan (CWP No. 14428 of 2005) retired as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 31.8.1991. Mr. Mahajan was thereafter appointed as Presiding Officer, District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum. On introduction of the scheme of Fast Track Courts by the Govt. of India, both the petitioners were appointed as Fast Track Judges in the State of Punjab and relinquished their charge on completion of the tenure as Fast Track Judges. The grievance of CWP No. 12248 of 2005 -2- the petitioners is that during their tenure as Fast Track Judges they have not been paid any salary/emoluments on account of anomaly in Rule 9 of the Punjab Additional District & Sessions Judges (Ad hoc Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is common case of the parties that service conditions of the petitioners on their re-employment as Fast Track Judges is governed and regulated by statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India namely Punjab Addl. District & Sessions Judges (Ad hoc Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 as notified vide Notification dated 26.10.2001. The remuneration is payable to such ad hoc judges in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, which is reproduced hereunder:- “ 9. Remuneration(1)- A person appointed to the service shall be paid pay as per govt. Rules minus pension, minus any special allowances drawn by the officer at the time of retirement. (2) House Rent Allowance-Rs.10,000/- P.M. However, if the officer is residing in his own house subject to a limit of Rs.10,000/- or rent assessed by the Govt. whichever is less. (3) Except as specified below, the member of the Service shall not be entitled to any other allowances:- (i) Rupees three thousand and five hundred per month as conveyance allowance in lieu of staff car; (ii) Re-imbursement of the rental charges and charges for not exceeding one thousand local calls of a telephone for two months got installed by him at his own expenses and; (iii) Travelling allowance and daily allowance as per Punjab Govt. Rules.” It seems that on some misinterpretation of the aforesaid rule, the petitioners have not been paid any remuneration on the ground that the pension being drawn by the petitioners is much more than the last pay drawn by them and thus nothing is payable. Petitioners approached the CWP No. 12248 of 2005 -3- High Court. The High Court vide its communication dated 15.2.2002 addressed to various District & Sessions Judges throughout the State of Punjab directed that the pay of the Fast Track Judges be drawn on the basis of their last pay certificate strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9.1 of the Rules. At the time of retirement of both the petitioners, they were drawing Rs.10, 958/- per month. Though, initially their pension at the time of retirement was much less, however, pursuant to the pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.1996 the pension of these petitioners came to be revised and at the time of their appointment in Fast Track Courts both the petitioners were drawing pension of Rs.13,589/- per month. It seems that interpreting Rule 9 of the Rules and in view of the communication of the High Court dated 15.2.2002 the State opined that the petitioners are entitled to the remuneration calculated as last pay drawn minus pension and minus any special allowance and since the petitioners' pension was much more than the last pay drawn by them, they were not paid any amount. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners suffered on account of non-payment of any emoluments for the period they performed their duties in Fast Track Courts. When the petitioners approached the High Court with the above situation, the High Court vide its letter dated 18.2.2003 proposed an amendment to Rule 9. Neither the proposal of the High Court was considered nor the petitioners have been paid any emoluments on account of interpretation sought to be placed by the Govt. in regard to Rule 9. However, in the reply filed in CWP No. 12248 of 2005 it is stated on behalf of State that the emoluments payable to Sh. K.R. Mahajan are as under:- CWP No. 12248 of 2005 -4- “ Basic pay on superannuation in the pay Rs.6500/- P.M. scale of Rs.3000-5600/- on 31.8.1991. Basic pension sanctioned w.e.f.1.9.1991 Rs.2459/- P.M. Basic pension calculated as on 1.1.1996 Rs.6519/- P.M. as per instructions issued vide F.D. Letter No.9740 dated 9.9.1998. With the revision of basic pension, his Rs.18,150/- basic pay is also to be fixed notionally on 1.1.1996. The petitioner would get pay on re- Rs.18150-6519= employment on 1.1.1996. 11631/-.” Even this stand taken by the respondents in the reply has not been implemented and the petitioners have not been allowed any remuneration for the period they performed their duties as Fast Track Judges. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The stand of the respondents is based upon total misinterpretation and misconsruction of Rule 9 of the Rules which simply provides that the persons appointed to the service shall be paid as per Govt. Rules minus pension, minus any special allowance drawn by the officers at the time of retirement. The Rule provides for pay as per Govt. Rules. It simply means pay as per the Govt. Rules at the time of appointment to the post in question. It has no relation with the last pay drawn by the Govt. employee. The approach of the State seems to be totally illogical and irrational. Rule is misunderstood by official respondents. The only logical, rational and true interpretation of the Rules means the pay attached to the post i.e. District/Addl. District & Sessions Judge at the time of appointment of an incumbent to the office of Fast Track Court minus pension and any special allowance, if, drawn by the officer on his retirement from his earlier CWP No. 12248 of 2005 -5- service. Rule 9 is clear in its terms and no amendment is needed. In view of the clear and unambiguous statutory position, the petitioners shall be entitled to remuneration i.e the pay attached to the post of District/Addl. District & Sessions Judge as the case may be at the time of appointment of petitioners to Fast Track Courts minus pension/special allowance drawn by them after their retirement from previous service. In view of the above, both these petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to determine the remuneration payable to the petitioners in the above manner. Let the admissible amount be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to all other allowances and benefits as are payable under Rule 9 of the Rules in addition to the pay to be determined in the above manner. Since the respondents have illegally withheld the salary of the petitioners, they shall be entitled to interest @ 6% on all their claims from the date of their relinquishing the office of Fast Track Courts till the amount is actually paid. It is further clarified that the petitioners shall also be entitled to benefit of any pay revision, if any during the period they were in service as Fast Track Judges. Copy of this order be placed on each connected file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.4.2011. lucky