JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
2. The petitioner was an Advocate Practising in this Court and he was appointed as a Judge of this Court on 23.8.1990 and he retired on 7.10.1996. Thereafter, he was appointed as Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal (I) Allahabad on 11.8.1997 and he is still working on that post. The petitioner claims that his service as Presiding Officer of the industrial Tribunal should be added to his service as a High Court Judge for the purpose of calculating his pension. A further prayer has been made that the petitioner should be granted the same house rent and other allowances which are granted to the sitting Judges of this Court.
3. So far as the first prayer is concerned, in our opinion, the same has to be allowed. It may be pointed out that the petitioner was given appointment letter dated 11.8.1997 appointing him as Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad vide Annexure-1 to the petition. In this letter, it was mentioned that the petitioner's term and conditions will be intimated later on. Subsequently, letter dated 25.10.1997 was issued to the petitioner, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition. In this letter dated 25.10.1997, it is no doubt mentioned in clause (ii) that his term in the Industrial Tribunal will not be added for the purpose of pension but this letter was subsequently modified by the letter dated 10.3.1998 copy of which is Annexure-10 of the writ petition. This letter dated 10.3.1998 mentioned that the petitioner has been a Judge of the High Court and hence he will get the same salary and benefits which were available to him before retirement as High Court Judge. In our opinion, this means that the petitioner's service in the Industrial Tribunal will also have to be added to his service as High Court Judge for calculating pension.
4. The facts of this case are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court In Union of India v. Pratibha Banerjee, 1995 (6) SCC 765. In that case, the respondent was a Judge of the Calcutta High Court and after retirement, he was appointed Vice Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal. It was held by the Supreme Court that her service in the Tribunal will be added to her service as Judge of the High Court for calculating pension. It may be noticed that as regards Pratibha Banerjee's case (supra). Rule 15A of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Service and Allowances and Conditions of Service) Rules. 1985, stated that the Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal shall have the same condition and perquisites as are admissible to a serving Judge. The expression "condition of service and other perquisites" was treated to include the matter of pension. The ratio of the said decision would apply to the decision of the present case as the letter dated 10.3.1998 Annexure-10 to the petition has stated that the petitioner will get the same salary and benefits as sitting Judge. The word ^lqfo/kk,* in the letter dated 10.3.98 has to be interpreted in the other sense to include pension also. as was done in Pratibha Banerjee's case (supra).
5. It may be mentioned that Judges of this Court who after retirement are appointed to the U.P. Public Service Tribunal are offered the same benefits as a sitting High Court Judge, vide Annexure-11 to the petition. The same is the case regarding Judges who after retirement from the High Court are appointed to the Legal Services Authority.
6. As regards Rule 6 (5) to the U.P. Presiding Officers of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Employment) Rules. 1996, the same has no relevance because Rule 6 (5) applies to the Government servant, who after retirement are appointed as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court or Tribunal. The petitioner did not retire as a Government servant but as a High Court Judge and hence Rule 6 (5) does not apply.
7. As regards the second prayer of housing and other allowance, in our opinion, the same position will apply here also and in view of the letter dated 10.3.1998 the petitioner is entitled to house rent allowance and other allowances payable to a sitting High Court Judge.
8. In view of the above this petition is allowed. The petitioner's service as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal will be added to his service as High Court Judge for calculating pension and he shall also be given house rent allowance and other allowances and perquisites payable to sitting High Court Judges. Arrears of house rent allowance and sumptuary allowance will be paid to the petitioner from the date of enforcement of Act 7 of 1999 within three months of production of a certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.