SHIMLA, JULY 23: In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to pay full pension along with 9% interest to Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma, former Judge of the High Court, who was later appointed as Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (HPAT).
The court quashed the deductions made from his pension during his tenure as HPAT chief, terming them “wholly impermissible.”
Justice Sandeep Sharma, delivering the judgment, observed that pension is not a bounty or a matter of grace but a vested right earned for past service rendered.
The court strongly held that the State had no authority to deduct his pension while he was serving as HPAT Chairman — an appointment made by the President of India under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — and not a reemployment under the Union Government.
No Reemployment, Fresh Appointment by President
The State had argued that since Justice Sharma was reemployed, his salary must be adjusted against the pension.
However, the court clarified that his appointment as Chairman of HPAT was not a reemployment, but a fresh appointment under statutory provisions, with salary fixed at Rs 80,000 and later revised to Rs 2,25,000, in line with sitting High Court Judges' pay scales.
“There was no condition in the appointment letter that the pay was to be reduced by the amount of pension received,” the court noted, calling the state’s interpretation of reemployment “misplaced.”
Pension Can't Be Clubbed with New Salary
Citing landmark rulings including D.S. Nakara vs Union of India and U.P. Raghavendra Acharya vs State of Karnataka, the court reiterated that pension is a deferred salary, akin to property, and cannot be adjusted or withheld due to subsequent appointments.
Justice Sharma’s petition challenged several government orders and salary slips where deductions had been made from his pension. The court not only quashed these orders but also directed the state to compensate him with arrears and interest at 9% per annum, to be paid within three months.
'No Parity with State Appointments'
The State had also cited a previous case involving Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), who was appointed as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and denied pension during that tenure.
However, the court distinguished the two, stating that the State Commission appointment was under State Rules, while the HPAT post is governed by Central law, and thus not comparable.
The court reaffirmed that HPAT’s service conditions are aligned with the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and cannot be overridden by unrelated State service rules or past precedents involving different statutory positions.
Directions to the Government
The court directed the State to:
-
Quash all impugned salary slips and orders reducing pension,
-
Implement the original appointment order dated 29.12.2014 issued by the President of India,
-
Pay full arrears with 9% interest from the due date to the actual date of payment.
“It is hoped and trusted,” the court concluded, “that the State will act swiftly and ensure compliance within three months.”