Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati and K. Venkataswami

ORDER

G.T. Nanavati, J.

1. The respondent who retired as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 31.12.89 was enrolled as an advocate on 27.1.59, appointed as District and Sessions Judge on 20.11.68 and then as a Judge and the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 14.12.77 and 4.10.89 respectively. On his retirement he elected for computation of his pension under Part III of the 1st Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. According to the provisions contained in Part III, pension of the Judge has to be determined in accordance with the rules of his service. The rules which applied to him are the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. His pension was, therefore, fixed in accordance with the said rules. On 20.2.90, Rule 16 of the said Rules was amended by the Government of Punjab and it was provided that in case of a direct recruit to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service the actual period of practice at the bar not exceeding 10 years shall be added to his service qualifying for superannuation pension and other retirement benefits. In view of this amendment the respondent claimed that being a direct recruit to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service he was entitled to addition of actual period of practice at the bar not exceeding 10 years to his qualifying service and, therefore, his pension and other retirement benefits have to be refixed. The High Court, in its turn, wrote to the Accountant General on 5.6.90 for refutation of his pension and other retirement benefits after giving him benefit of the amendment. The Accountant General, it appears, was not inclined to agree with this claim and, therefore, referred the matter to the State Government for correct interpretation of the rule. On 25.2.91 the State Government decided that the notification dated 22.2.90 has only prospective effect and, therefore, benefit of the amended Rule 16 cannot be given to the respondent. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court inter alia praying that the Union of India and the State Government be directed to give benefit of the amended Rule 16 to him and to compute his pension afresh in accordance with the said provision. The stand taken by the Union of India was that it was not really con........