THE  high Court Judges (Salaries and conditions of service) Amendment BILL, 2002

a

BILL

 further to amend the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

Be it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-third Year  of the Republic of India as follows:—

1. Short title and commencement.-(1) This Act may be called the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2002.

  (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of January, 1996.

2. Amendment of section 17A of Act 28 of 1984.-In the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service)  Act, 1954, in section 17A, in sub-section (1),—

(i) for the words "family pension calculated at the rate of sixty per cent. of the pension admissible to him", the words "fifty per cent. of his salary" shall be substituted;

(ii) for the words "and thereafter at the rate of half of the family pension so admissible", the words "and thereafter at the rate of thirty per cent. of his salry" shall be substituted;

(iii) before the Explanation, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—

"Provided that in no case the amount of family pension calculated under this sub-section shall exceed the  pension payable to the Judge under this  Act.".

 STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The family pension in the case of Judges of the High Court is governed by the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17A of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.  As per the existing provisions of the said Act, there are two rates of family pension, i.e. (i) the family pension at the rate of thirty per cent. of the pension admissible to a Judge, who retired after 1.11.1986, and (ii) the family pension at the rate of thirty per cent. of the salary of a Judge, who retired prior to 1.11.1986. The determination of family pension on the basis of percentage of the pension to one category and on the basis of percentage of the salary to the other category has resulted in an anomaly.

2. Representation have been received from the Judges for removing the above anomaly. The Chief Justice of India has also requested for taking appropriate steps to remove the anomaly in the matter of fixation of family pension of the Judges.

3. An analogous provision exists in case of the family pension of the Supreme Court Judges. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in O. Chinnappa Reddy Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No. 14804 of 1999), has also observed that the said provision needs to be suitably amended so as to rectify the anomalous situation which has arisen in the matter of payment of family pension.

4. Accordingly, to remove the above anomaly in case of High Court Judges, it is proposed to amend the aforesaid provisions for providing uniform rates of family pension to the Judges irrespective of their date of retirement.

5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above object.

 New Delhi;   K. JANA KRISHNAMURTHI.

The  12 July, 2002.

————

president’s recommendation under article 117 of the constitution of india

————

[Copy of letter No. L-11016/62000-Jus. dated the 19th July, 2002 from Shri K. Jana Krishnamurthi, Minister of Law and Justice to the Secretary-General, Lok Sabha].

The President, having been informed of the subject matter of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill, 2002, recommends the introduction and consideration of the Bill in Lok Sabha under article 117(1) and (3) of the Constitution of India.

 FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM

Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to amend section 17A of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 so as to revise the family pension of Judges from sixty per cent. of the pension to fifty per cent. of the pay last drawn for the first seven years after death or up to the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier and thereafter from thirty per cent. of the pension to thirty per cent. of the pay subject to the condition that the family pension so calculated in both categories shall in no case exceed the pension admissible to the judge. The proposal does not involve any substantial financial implications as there are only few family pensioners of the deceased Judges.

2. The expenditure in respect of the Judges of the Delhi High Court and 5.26 per cent. of the expenses in respect of Punjab and Haryana High Court are to be borne by the Central Government and is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Payment on account of arrears will be made with effect from 1.1.1996 and shall be of a non-recurring nature which would come around rupees ten lakhs (excluding fluctuating dearness relief). The approximate recurring expenditure of the Central Government would be around rupees two lakhs (excluding fluctuating dearness relief) per annum.

3. The Bill does not involve any other expenditure of either recurring or non-recurring nature.