New Delhi :
Rajya Sabha today passed a bill seeks to remove anomalies in the pensionary benefits of High Court judges elevated from the bar.
The High Court and the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill, 2015 will also simplify some of the provisions relating to determination of leave allowances of judges of High Courts and the apex court.
Introduced in Lok Sabha on the last day of the Monsoon session last year, the bill was passed in the Lower House during the Winter session in December 2015.
The bill says that the practice of 10 years as advocate will be added as qualifying service for High Court judges elevated from the bar, as ordered by the Supreme Court in a judgment in March 2014.
The measure seeks to give effect to this judgment.
In the judgement, the apex court had said in order to
remove arbitrariness in the matter of pension of High Court judges elevated from the bar, the relief should be reckoned from April one, 2004.
It sought to amend the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958.
“With the passage of time, certain provisions in the aforesaid acts have become spent and outdated. A review has been undertaken and it has been decided to remove the same for clarity and provide for the added years of service in view of the judgment given by the Supreme Court,” the Bill said. Business in the Lok Sabha collapsed tonight for want of quorum, leaving the discussion on Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address incomplete.
The issue of lack of quorum was raised by Dushyant Chautala of INLD, when the House was discussing the Motion.
P Venugopal, who was in the chair, ordered ringing of quorum bells but in vain.
BJP members like Anurag Thakur were seen rushing to the House as frantic efforts were made by the government managers to muster a quorum.
Union Ministers like Harsimrat Kaur Badal and Thawar Chand Gehlot were in the House.
Venugopal later announced that there was no quorum and adjourn the House for the day.
As per the quorum rules, at least 10 per cent of the total strength of the House should be present. In this case, 55 members were required to be present while the number was only 44.