The Andhra Pradesh High Court has partially allowed the plea of a retired Subordinate Judge claiming that the proceedings issued by the High Court Registrar for reducing his pension amounts to imposing further punishment after the Government imposing a 20% cut in his pension for a lifetime and held that the petitioner should be entitled to the benefits of the revised pay scales in 1993 and that the 20% cut in pension should be determined after fixing the petitioner's pay in the revised scale.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was a District Munsif Magistrate in the State Judicial Services and was later promoted to Subordinate Judge. However, he was suspended from service in 1991 and eventually removed from service in 1993. The respondent imposed further punishment in the year 2000 and 2001 against which the petitioner has filed this writ petition in this High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the two sets of proceedings by the respondent in 2000 and 2001 by the High Court imposed further punishment after the government's order of pension cut in 1999 was illegal, arbitrary, illegal and unjust.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that proceeding in 2000 was done as per the order of the High Court after due notice to the petitioner. The High Court while regularising the period between the date of removal order and the date of superannuation of the petitioner, limited the pay and allowances payable to the petitioner for the said period to 75% as the petitioner was not exonerated of the charges against him.
Further the counsel for the respondent submitted that as regards the period of suspension till the date of superannuation, the High Court proceedings in 2001 treating the said period as not on duty for all purposes and limited the pay and allowances to the subsistence allowance already drawn and paid to the petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon'ble Court observed that the actions taken in 2000 and 2001 were not meant to add more punishment but were carried out to regularize the petitioner's service period from the time of his removal to his retirement. These actions were in line with Rule 54-A(2) and Rule 54(5). The court emphasized that the petitioner's dismissal had been overturned, and his employment had not been terminated. The court also determined that the respondents were obligated to calculate the petitioner's salary based on the revised pay scales of 1993 and subsequently until the petitioner reached the age of superannuation as if he had been in continuous service.
Additionally, the court ruled that during the period from 1993 to 1994, when the petitioner was considered to be off-duty, he would only be eligible for a subsistence allowance equal to 75% of his salary, calculated according to the 1993 pay scales. Finally, the court concluded that it would be fair to treat the petitioner as having had no active service from 1993 to 1994, due to the High Court's annulment of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The present writ petition was partially allowed and the court ruled that the petitioner should be entitled to the benefits of the updated pay scale and corresponding adjustments to his pension. The court ordered the respondents to implement these directives within a two-month period.
However, it was concluded that the proceedings issued in the year 2000 and 2001 were not illegal and hence the court did not find any merit in the prayer for setting aside the said proceedings.
Case Title: Ch.Harinath vs. The Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of A.P. and others
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon’ble Sri Justice B.V.L.N Chakravarthi
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15346 of 2002
Advocate for the Applicant: G Ravi Mohan
Advocate for the Respondent: M/S Indus Law Firm, S. Nageswarareddy
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
