Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by a retired Vice Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order dated 26-12-2019, passed by the State Government whereby his representation claiming the benefit of domestic help allowance has been rejected, the division bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. has held that the petitioner is entitled to Domestic Help Allowance and directed the State to make available the same to the petitioner with effect from 01.03.2008 along with periodical revision, if any, within a month from the date of this order, along with the arrears of the said allowance within the next two months. However, he was not entitled to the payment of interest.
Background:
The petitioner has been a member of the district judiciary in the State of U.P. and while working in the post of District Judge, he took voluntary retirement and on selection joined as a Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He, subsequently, was appointed as Vice-Chairman of the said Tribunal and retired on 22-05-2005 from the post of Vice-Chairman. Initially, after his retirement, he was paid the Domestic Help Allowance till 31-12-2007, however, for subsequent quarters, he was not paid this allowance and accordingly, agitated his matter with the authorities. Thus, he instituted a writ petition, which was decided with a direction to the State Government in the Department of Law and Justice to reconsider his claim. The said claim has, however, been denied to him by the State Government by passing the order dated 26-12-2019 which is under challenge in this writ petition.
The petitioner prayed for the payment of the said allowance in accordance with the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 20- 04-1999 with effect from 01-03-2008 along with periodical revisions and arrears with interest at the rate of 12%.
Analysis
After perusing Rule 15-A of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 (‘Rules 1985’) , the Court said that the conditions of service and other perquisites to Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Tribunal is to be the same as are admissible to Judges of High Courts in terms of the provisions contained in High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
After perusing the definition of the expression ‘pension’ as occurring in Section 2(gg) of Act 1954, the Court said that pension does not mean the pension of any kind alone payable in respect of a Judge, but it also includes gratuity or other sum or sums payable by way of death or retirement benefits. Thus, if any sum is payable to a Judge of High Court by way of retirement benefits, such sum will also be included in the definition of the expression ‘pension’.
The Court said that it is not denied that a High Court Judge after retirement is entitled to the Domestic Help Allowance. As per mandate of Rule 15-A of Rules 1985, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal are also entitled to perquisites available to a High Court Judge as contained in Act, 1954. Thus, in case any retirement benefit is available to a retired High Court Judge, the same shall also be available to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Court noted that in Rule 15-A of Rules 1985, the word “shall” occurs, and accordingly it is mandatory. Thus, mandate of Rules 1985 is that the conditions of service and other perquisites as available to a Judge of High Court shall be made available to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well. The very mandatory nature of the language occurring in Rule 15-A makes it obligatory on the part of the State to make available all the perquisites, which shall include the Domestic Help Allowance as well. The benefit of Domestic Help Allowance is, in fact, a retirement benefit and hence it will be included in the expression ‘pension’ as occurring in Section 2(gg) of Act 1954.
[Dinesh Chandra Verma v. State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine All 432, decided on 18-7-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Shireesh Kumar;
Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra.
