THE Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and
conditions of service) second Amendment bill, 2002
further to amend the Supreme Court Judges
(Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958.
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 Supreme Court Judges
(Salaries and Conditions of Service) Second Amendment Act,
2002.
(2) It shall be deemed to have come
into force on the 1st day of January, 1996.
2. Amendment of
section 16A of Act 41 of 1958.-In the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and
Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, in section 16A, in sub-section
(1),—
(i) in
clause (a),—
(A) for the
words "family pension calculated at the rate of sixty per cent. of the pension
admissible to him", the words "family pension calculated at the rate of fifty
per cent. of his salary" shall be substituted;
(B) 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 salary" shall
be substituted;
(ii) in
clause (b), for the words "family pension shall be thirty per cent.
of the pension admissible", the
words "family pension shall be thirty per cent. of his salary" 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 Supreme
Court is governed by the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 16A of the
Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958. 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. Representations 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. 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 Act 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, it is proposed to amend the aforesaid provisions for
providing uniform rates of family pension to the Judges of Supreme Court
irrespective of their date of retirement.
5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above
object.
New
Delhi; K. JANA
KRISHNAMURTHI.
The 12th
July, 2002.
————
PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATION UNDER
ARTICLE 117 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
————
[Copy of letter No. L-11016/6/2000-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 Supreme 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 16A of the
Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 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 65 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
Supreme Court is 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 twenty lakhs (excluding fluctuating dearness relief). The
approximate recurring expenditure of the Central Government would be around
rupees three lakhs (excluding fluctuating dearness relief) per
annum.
3. The Bill does not involve any other expenditure of
either recurring or non-recurring nature.