HOW THE COURTS SPREAD UNHAPPINESS?

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”

The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, was enacted by Parliament on May 20, 1954, to regulate the salaries and service conditions of judges of high courts in the 50th year of the Republic of India. Paragraph 17B, titled Additional Quantity of Pension or Family Pension, was inserted in the Act by Act 23 of 2009, and it was made effective on January 1, 2006.

A similar paragraph was added to the pension regulations of all the central government services.

The parliament presumably modified the Act and pension regulations for senior pensioners in 2009, aiming to provide relief to elderly retired pensioners. The objective was to ensure proper care for pensioners entering the later stages of life. Individuals in the final phase of life encounter unique challenges due to advanced age and declining health. The parliamentary amendment in 2009 was intended to address such circumstances, granting each pensioner an increased pension amount and, in the event of their passing, providing their family with an augmented family pension at a specified scale given below:-

• From 80 years to less than 85 years the additional quantum of pension/ family pension was 20% of basic pension or family pension.
• From 85 years to less than 90 years the additional quantum of pension/ family pension was 30% of basic pension or family pension.
• From 90 years to less than 95 years the additional quantum of pension/ family pension was 40% of basic pension or family pension.
• From 95 five years to less than100 years the additional quantum of pension / family pension was 50% of basic pension or family pension.
• From 100 years or more the additional quantum of pension/ family pension was 100% of basic pension or family pension.

This increase in pension upon reaching the age of 80 years brought joy and happiness to every pensioner.

This state of contentment persisted until March 15, 2018, when the Guwahati High Court issued a verdict regarding the enhancement of old age pension starting from the initial day of one's 80th year. This judgment was rendered in WP (C) 4224/2016.

The petition was filed by Virendra Dutt Gyani, s/o Vishnu Dutt Gyani, in 2016. The petitioner was a practicing advocate in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh before he was elevated as a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in May 1984. In April 1994, he was transferred to the Guwahati High Court, where he retired as Acting Chief Justice on July 29, 1998, after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 62 years.

In this case the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court went on to examine the meaning of the expression “from eighty years” as appearing in Section 17B. The Hon’ble court took almost three years to decide the meaning of the expression “from eighty years” or to decide what the legislature had in mind when it brought about the amendment. In spite of the government of the day explaining the meaning of the term “from eighty years” through their counsels and also in spite of a precedence of almost eight years wherein no pensioner found any fault with the interpretation of the term by the government, the Hon’ble High Court in its wisdom ruled against the government. This judgment was obviously challenged by the government in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court upheld the Guwahati High Court judgment.

Suddenly, all the pensioners who were happy until now in the knowledge that their pension would be enhanced upon reaching the age of 80 became unhappy and felt aggrieved. Especially those pensioners who had attained the age of 79 were most agitated. There was a long list of aggrieved parties which mostly consisted of senior citizens from the ages of 79 to 85 years. No one wanted to be left behind, and many pensioners approached various courts through their lawyers to seek the enhancement of their pensions on reaching the age of 79 years. So, at an advanced age when the pensioner should have been enjoying the autumn years of their lives, they were running around the courts. Some of the affected pensioners who had no interest in getting into litigation were forced by their family members to do so.

Equally situated defense pensioners also experienced discontent and promptly approached the Armed Forces Tribunals (AFTs) seeking redress. This led to a considerable increase in the workload for legal professionals and the judicial system. The legal practitioners found satisfaction in the court's rulings on this issue, as this brought about a substantial increase in their caseload and earnings. The already congested court system became even more overwhelmed due to the influx of petitions concerning this issues.

Hence, the Hon'ble Courts, in their wisdom in offering respite to a retired Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court, inadvertently stirred up significant widespread discontent, resentment, and unwarranted workload for the choked up judicial system.

The government had all the time been contending in the courts that the parliament's intent was to enhance the pensions of the senior pensioners upon their reaching 80 years of age. After being unable to convince the courts, the government issued a Gazette Notification dated December 20 and amended Section 17B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.?

The matter seems to have been resolved for now. But it should be realized that a small decision of a court creates immense unhappiness amongst the masses, generate lots of business for lawyers, and create a humongous amount of work for the overloaded and choked judicial system.

The courts have a number of times commented that the government is the biggest litigant in the country without ever giving it a thought that it some of the decisions of the courts that force the government to litigate.

?

?