AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 223/2007:
Put up next week.
I.A. No. 5 of 2009 in I.A. No. 244 in W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989:
The applicants in this IA are judicial officers who retired after January 01, 1996, but prior to January 2006. They are aggrieved by the recommendation of Justice Padmanabhan Committee, as contained in paragraph 31 of its report. Paragraph 31 of the recommendations of the Committee, insofar as it is relevant, is as under:
Para 31: The recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission with respect to past pensioners are given in paragraph 23.18 which are as under:
1) The revised pension of the retired judicial officers should be 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time.
xxx
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate appearing for the applicants, pointed out that the Padmanabhan Committee, apparently due to oversight, fixed the revised pension of the concerned judicial officers at 50% of the minimum of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time. Consequently, as a result of the revision, the concerned judicial officers are getting as pension an amount which is lower than what they earlier received before revision.
The grievance of the applicants appears to be justified and it is significant to note that both the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, in their respective responses, have supported the case of the applicants.
Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned amicus curiae, also submitted that there was evidently some error in the recommendation of the One Man Committee.
We, accordingly, accept the prayer of the applicants and allow this IA in terms of prayer Clause (i) of the application.
IA No. 5 stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 1 of 2008 in I.A. No. 213 of 2007:
As prayed on behalf of the applicant, put up after four weeks.