Justice T Somasundaram Vs the Officer on Special Duty(Pension )

The Officer on Special Duty (Pension ) Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure Trikoot-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, Rk Puram, New Delhi-110 066

¶14

2.Accountant General (A & E) Tamil Nadu, No.361, Annasalai, Chennai-600 018

¶15

3.Centralised Pension Processing Centre Indian Bank, 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

WP No. 17929 of 2024

¶18

4.Ministry of Law and Justice New Delhi-110 001

¶19

5.The Registrar Cum Special Officer (liaisoning)

¶20

High Court, Chennai-600 104

¶21

Respondent(s)

¶22

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to calculate and release pensionary benefits due to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2016 under 7th Pay Commission and any other benefits available to the petitioner and that are due to the petitioner as per the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Venkaetsh Kumar

¶24

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.T. Balaji,

¶25

Senior Panel Counsel For RR1 & 4 Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, For Mrs.Aiyar and Dolia For R3 Mr.V.Vijaya Shankar For RR2 & 5

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by S. M. Subramaniam J.)

¶28

The writ petition has been instituted by the retired Judge of the High

¶29

Court of Madras seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No. 17929 of 2024

¶32

calculate and release the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner with effect

¶33

from 01.01.2016 under 7th Pay Commission and other consequential benefits.

¶34

With reference to the grievances, this Court directed the respondents to

¶35

explain the reasons for non-settlement of pension arrears. The respondents No.1

¶36

and 2 made a submission that they have already given authorisation to the

¶37

Indian Bank and the Bank has delayed in payment of arrears of pension to the

¶38

petitioner.

¶39

May that as it be, now the second respondent filed a counter and the

¶40

relevant paragraphs as under:

¶41

“4.It is submitted that in addition to the pension payable to the petitioner as per the provisions of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, he is entitled to pension for the services rendered by him in the Tribunal under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Services of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1989. Both the pensions have undergone revision by virtue of subsequent Notifications/orders. As per the existing provisions, both the pensions together payable in respect of any individual should not exceed Rs.1350000/- per annum.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

WP No. 17929 of 2024

¶44

5.It is submitted that the essential cause for the nonpayment of the revised pension to the petitioner has arisen, as a query was raised by the Third Respondent, the Centralised Pension Processing Centre, Indian Bank, as to whether both the pensions have to be aggregated to the maximum or the additional pension has to be paid as per Railway Sanctioning Authority.

¶45

6.It is submitted that the matter was referred to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, the Fourth Respondent herein, by a letter dated 20.02.2018 of the second Respondent, which has been admitted by the petitioner in para 12 of his affidavit.

¶46

7.It is submitted that the Fourth Respondent, by a letter dated 01.10.2024, has clarified that as far as the quantum of Pension in respect of the High Court Judges is concerned, it should in no case exceed Rs.1350000/- p.a. (i.e., Rs.112500/-), as per the proviso under Part I and III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954.”

¶47