AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner who has since retired as a District & Sessions Judge, is aggrieved by the order dated ''September 19, 1991 by which he was informed that he was "entitled to the total special pay of Rs. 500/- only inclusive of the special pay attached with the post of Judge, Designated Court....". He avers that this order is based on ''arithmetical absurdity'' and is illegal. According to the petitioner, the post of District Judge carried the special pay of Rs. 300/- per month while a Judge, Designated Court was entitled to the special pay of Rs. 500/- per month. Consequently, the petitioner claims that he was entitled to be paid Rs. 800/- per month on account of special pay. The respondents contest this claim. A few facts may be noticed.
The petitioner is a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service since September 1, 1977. On July 25, 1990, he was appointed as a Judge of the Designated Court at Hoshiarpur. He retired on March 31, 1992. The petitioner avers that with effect from April 1, 1978, a special pay of Rs. 150/-per month had been sanctioned for the post of District & Sessions Judge in the State of Punjab. In view of the arduous nature of duties which the Presiding Officers of the designated courts are required to discharge, the Government of Punjab by its orders dated March 4, 1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-5, had allowed a special pay of Rs. 300/- per month. Vide order dated August 30, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, the State Government decided that "the existing rate of special pay, wherever already attached with the existing scale of pay of a post, shall stand doubled subject to a maximum of Rs. 500/-with effect from 1st January 1986, or the date from which special pay has been sanctioned, whichever is later." The petitioner avers that as a result of this order, he was entitled to draw a special pay of Rs. 500/- in his capacity as Presiding Officer of the designated court and Rs. 300/- per month (double of Rs. 150/- per month) as a District & Sessions Judge. On this basis, the petitioner claims to be entitled to a total of Rs. 800/- per month by way of special pay. He avers that vide order dated September 19, 1991, he was directed to draw a total of Rs. 500/- per month as special pay as a result of which he was forced to forego the special pay of Rs. 300/- per month which he was entitled to draw in his capacity as a District & Sessions Judge. In response to his representations, he was informed by the Registrar of this Court that the matter had been clarified by the Punjab Government vide letter dated June 24, 1987. Wherein it was observed that "Special Pay of Rs. 300/- per mensem granted to the Presiding Officers of the Designated Courts is inclusive of the Special Pay..." attached to the post of District Judge, Aggrieved by this action, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The petitioner avers that the decision is illegal and adversely affects not only his total emoluments but even the retiral benefits.
A written statement has been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab by the Deputy Secretary (Home). It has been inter alia averred that the State Government had sanctioned a special pay of Rs. 150/- per month for the District & Sessions Judges. Thereafter, on the abolition of special courts, they were given the charge of designated courts. Keeping in view the arduous nature of duties of the Presiding Officers of the designated courts, "the special pay was raised to Rs. 300/- per month including the special pay they were already getting as District and Sessions Judges. This special pay was later doubled subject to a maximum of Rs. 500/- w.e.f. Ist January, 1986 or the date from which the special pay was sanctioned whichever is later. The argument that they are entitled for two Special pays i.e. Rs. 300/- and 500/- is highly misconceived, as the duties of District and Sessions Judges and the Presiding Officers are not being discharged at the same time...". The other averments in the writ petition have been controverted. It has been averred that the action is in strict conformity with law and no benefit admissible to the petitioner has been denied.
The petitioner has appeared in person and contended that the designated courts are constituted u/s 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA). The Presiding Officer of such a designated court holds an office which is distinct from that of a District & Sessions Judge. The State Government having sanctioned special pay of Rs. 300/- per month to each of the Presiding Officers in the designated courts vide order dated March 4, 1987 (Annexure P-5 with the writ petition), it was an additional benefit and did not affect the special pay granted to the District & Sessions Judges vide order dated July 3, 1978 (Annexure P-3 with the writ petition). He submits that this action was in conformity with the provisions contained in Rules 2.52 and 4.22 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part 1 and that the action of the respondents in holding that the special pay granted to the Presiding Officers of the designated courts is inclusive of the special pay which was being drawn by the District & Sessions Judges, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The claim made by the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Randhir Singh, appearing for the respondents. He also produced the relevant records.
Special Pay has been defined in Rule 2.52 contained in Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I Part I. It means "an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of Government employees, granted in consideration of :- (a) the specially arduous nature of duties; or (b) a specific addition to the work or responsibility and includes non-practising allowance granted to doctors in lieu of private practice." Note 3 to which a reference was made by the petitioner provides as under:-
Note 3 - A provision in the contract of a Government employee appointed to a particular post that he should "also do all things that may be required of him" does not contemplate his being required to perform onerous additional duties in another post without remuneration."
Arduous nature of duties or specific addition to the work or responsibility warrant that the employee be compensated. This is the principle discernible from Rule 2.52 and Note 3 thereto. However, the decision in this behalf has to be taken by the competent authority. It is not the function of the Courts to decide as to how much special pay should be granted in a particular case.
A perusal of the documents on record shows that all District Judges were granted a special pay of Rs. 150/- per month. Subsequently, in March 1987, the Government sanctioned a special pay of Rs. 300/- for the Presiding Officer of the Designated Courts. A perusal of the order dated March 4, 1987 (Annexure P-5 with the writ petition) does not show that this special pay was in addition to that which was already being drawn by the officers as District Judges. Even the scope for a doubt in this behalf was removed by issue of the letter dated June 24, 1987. a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2. Consequently, it appears that the Government had, in fact, sanctioned a special pay of Rs. 150/- for all District Judges but those amongst them who were to preside over the Designated Courts were entitled to special pay at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Thereafter, in pursuance to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the Government decided that the existing rate of special pay shall stand doubled subject to a maximum of Rs. 500/- with effect from January 1, 1986 or the date from which the special pay has been sanctioned whichever is later. This is precisely what has been given to the petitioner.
Mr. Gupta, however, submits that the District & Sessions Judge and the Presiding Officer of a Designated Court are two separate officers and consequently, he is entitled to separate remuneration for each of these posts. The argument is misconceived. It is undoubtedly true that u/s 9 of the Act, the Central or a State Government is competent to constituted Designated Courts. Clause (6) of this provision further shows that "a person should not be qualified for appointment as a judge or an additional judge of a Designated Court unless he is, immediately before such appointment, a sessions judge or an additional sessions judge in any State." It is, thus, apparent that only a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Designated Court. It is also true that the duties attached to this post are of arduous nature. It may also be assumed that there is some addition to the work or responsibility. However, it is on account of these factors only that special pay of Rs. 300/- per month was sanctioned by the Government vide order dated March 4, 1987 in respect of District Judges working in the Designated Courts. Still further, it cannot be said that a Judge of the Designated Court holds a separate and independent post besides that of a District Judge or that the person is appointed to a second post as contemplated under Rule 4.22. It is well known that District Judges exercise jurisdiction under various Statutes. When a District Judge decides a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1954, he is designated as a ''special Judge''. While hearing an appeal under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, he is designated as an ''Appellate Authority.'' In each of these cases, the District Judge does not come to hold an additional post. He merely exercises his jurisdiction under the particular Statute. Similar is the position when he acts as a Judge of the Designated Court. The District Judge has been assigned the duties of a Judge of the Court constituted for hearing cases under TADA. For this additional responsibility, the State Government has compensated him by sanctioning additional special pay.
Mr. Gupta submits that in case, a person is appointed to hold two or more independent posts, his pay has to be regulated according to Rule 4.22. The contention is misconceived. A District Judge while acting as the Presiding Officer of a Designated Court is not appointed to a new post but is merely assigned additional work and responsibility. For this addition to duties, special pay was raised from Rs. 150/- per month to Rs. 300/- per month.
Mr. Gupta submits that the letter dated June 24, 1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2, had not been issued by the competent authority and is, thus, invalid. He, however, conceded that no such plea had been raised in the writ petition. Consequently, the contention cannot be allowed to be raised.
No other point was urged.
Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, no ground for the grant of relief is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.