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