Pre-2007 CAT Members remain governed by Rule 8 proportionality, not High Court Judge pension parity.

The Petitioner, a former Member (Judicial) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) appointed on December 11, 2000, challenged the fixation of his pension under the Pension Payment Orders (PPO) of 2010 and subsequent revisions in 2020.

Following the Supreme Court's directions, the Petitioner was granted an additional ten years of Bar practice as qualifying service, totaling twenty years.

The Petitioner contested the valuation of each year of service, claiming he should receive Rs. 16,020/- per annum (6th CPC) and Rs. 45,016/- per annum (7th CPC) as prescribed under Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

The Respondent maintained that as a pre-2007 appointee, his pension is governed by Rule 8 of the 1985 Rules, which prescribes lower proportionate figures (Rs. 14,532/- and Rs. 40,836/- respectively).

1. Whether a Member (Judicial) of CAT appointed before February 19, 2007, is entitled to direct parity with the pension figures of High Court Judges under the 1954 Act.

2. Whether the "proportionality formula" adopted by the Government for CAT Members’ pension is arbitrary or legal.

3. Whether Rule 16 (residuary conditions of service) of the 1985 Rules can override specific pension provisions in Rule 8.

Section 10A of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (as amended in 2006), which saves the service conditions of members appointed prior to the amendment.

Rule 8 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Members) Rules, 1985, which specifically occupies the field regarding pension calculations.

The principle from M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India (1990), which establishes that CAT members are not a homogeneous class with High Court Judges for all service conditions.

Distinction from In Re: Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court (2025), noting that constitutional offices and statutory offices have different frameworks.

The Court reasoned that Section 10A creates a statutory wall between pre-2007 and post-2007 appointees; the Petitioner, falling in the former category, cannot claim the parity granted to the latter by Section 8(3).

Regarding the valuation of service years, the Court found that while the pension of CAT Members is "linked" to that of High Court Judges for benchmark purposes, it is not "identical".

The Government’s proportionality formula (based on the ratio of mean pay between Members and the Chairman/High Court Judges) was found to be a conscious policy choice reflected in successive statutory amendments to Rule 8.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on Rule 16, holding that residuary rules cannot override express provisions (Rule 8).

Since Rule 8 defines pension as a fixed amount per year rather than a percentage of the last salary, the Petitioner's arguments regarding his last pay drawn were deemed irrelevant.

The Court confirmed that the figures of Rs. 14,532/- and Rs. 40,836/- per annum were validly prescribed under Rule 8 and that the linkage to the High Court Judges Act was intended only for revision benchmarks, not for absolute parity.

No interference was required regarding the Pension Payment Orders or the underlying notifications.