J. George v. State of Kerala and Ors.

W.P(c).No.1234/2016 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY ,THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 9TH BHADRA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 1234 of 2016** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **J. GEORGE RETIRED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, OLIPPIL HOUSE,PULLICHIRA P.O., MAYYANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691304.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.) SRI.KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.S.SHYAM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001.** - **2 ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A E OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.** - **3 HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031.** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SUNIL KURIAKOSE SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(c).No.1234/2016 2 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ -------------------------W.P(C) No.1234 of 2016-R ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 31[st] day of August, 2018_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ The petitioner, who retired as a Selection Grade Chief Judicial Magistrate in 1990, is aggrieved by the rejection of his request for payment of basic pension at 50% of the minimum of the scale of pay of Civil Judges, Senior Division (II ACP) with effect from 01.01.1996. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.8.1990, while working as a Selection Grade Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service. The civil and criminal wings of subordinate judiciary were integrated with effect from 1.1.1992, subsequent to his retirement. When the petitioner was granted promotion as Selection Grade Chief Judicial Magistrate, there existed a ratio of 2:1 between Chief Judicial Magistrates (`CJM' for short) in entry grade and the Selection Grade CJM, by virtue of Ext.P1- G.O (Ms) No. 939/86/115/Fin. dated 23.12.1986. The petitioner was promoted as Selection Grade CJM, as per Ext.P2 order, with effect from 13.7.1990 against a retirement vacancy, based on Ext.P1 order. On retirement on 31.8.1990, his monthly pension was admitted as per Ext.P7 letter dated 06.11.1990 of the Accountant General, at the rate of Rs.1936/-, based on his pay as Selection Grade CJM as per the then existed rules. 3. As per Ext.P1 order, the scale of pay of CJM was enhanced from W.P(c).No.1234/2016 3 Rs.1950-2950 to 2100-3040 and that of Selection Grade CJM from Rs.2100-3040 to 2250-3350. At that time, the scale of pay of Sub Judges was Rs.1950-2950, as per Ext.P2 pay revision order. By a subsequent pay revision ordered in Ext.P4 issued on 07.09.2001, the scale of pay of CJM was revised from 3900-5075 to 12600-15600. The scale of pay of the Sub Judge was also the same as that of CJM. The scale of pay of Sel.Gr. CJM was revised from 4200-5300 to 14000-18000. 4. In the meanwhile, the first National Judicial Pay Commission constituted by the Government of India had submitted its report which is known as Justice Shetty Commission Report. The Apex Court in its judgment in _**All India Judges Association & others v. Union of India and Others**_ : [(2002) 4 SCC 247] accepted various recommendations in Shetty Commission Report, including those regarding the scale of pay. Chapter 23 of the report, deals with the pension structure of past pensioners. Clause 22.18 therein are the recommendations in their case. The first recommendation in paragraph 22.18, is the following: “The revised pension of the Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement as revised from time to time”. This recommendation is with respect to all those who retired prior to 01.01.1996. That recommendation was accepted by the Apex Court in the judgment. Chapter 15 of the report deals with evolution of new pay scales. After referring to the pay structure of the Judicial Officers in each of the States, in paragraph 15.38 of the report, the Commission classified the Judicial Officers into three and determined the following primary pay scales: W.P(c).No.1234/2016 4 Civil Judges (Junior Division) :Rs.9000-250-10750-300-13150-350-14550 Civil Judges (Senior Division) :Rs. 12850-300-13150-350- 15950-400-17550 Disrtict Judges : Entry level-Rs.16750-400- 19150-450-20500. The appropriate State Governments were free to assign nomenclature to the various posts in the judicial service. The Apex Court accepted the recommendations regarding the revised scale of pay. 5. The 1[st] respondent – the State of Kerala, had, as per Ext.P5 issued on 12.12.2001, ordered implementation of the scale of pay as recommended by the Shetty Commission to the Subordinate Judiciary in the State w.e.f 1.1.1996. The nomenclature given by the State Government to the various divisions of Civil Judges and the corresponding scale of pay in this order are: I. i. Munsiff/Magistrate/JSCM/JFCM/Sr. Grade JFCM: 9000-14550 (Civil Judge Junior Division) - ii. Munsiff/Magistrate/JSCM/JFCM/Sr.Gr. JFCM(after 5 years of continuous service from the date of entry) (1[st] stage ACP scale) :10750-14900. - iii. Munsiff/Magistrate/JSCM/JFCM/Sr.Gr. JFCM after completion of another 5 years of continuous service (Second stage ACP scale) : 12850-17550. - II i. Sub Judge/CJM/Addl.CJM/Sel.Gr.CJM : 12850-17550 (Civil Judge-senior Division) ii. Sub Judge/CJM/Addl.CJM/Sel.Gr.CJM (Civil Judge-senior Division) after 5 years service of continuous service (1[st] stage ACP scale) : 14200-18350 iii Sub Judge/CJM/Addl.CJM/Sel.Gr.CJM after another 5 years of continuous service (2[nd] stage ACP) : 16750-20500 III. i District and Sessions Judge/Addl.District & Sessions Judge/Registrar of High Court/Spl. Judge/MACT: Rs. 18750-20500 ii. Sel.Gr. District And Sessions Judge: 18750-22850; iii. Super time scale :Rs. 22850-24850. W.P(c).No.1234/2016 5 The benefit of ACP Scheme was to be given subject to appraisal of work and performance by a committee of senior Judges of the High Court constituted for the purpose and would not be automatic. As per para 13(b) of the order, which relates to pre-1.1.1996 pensioners, pension of the retired judicial officers shall be 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement and as revised from time to time, without any ceiling limit. The pay fixation rules were also provided in this report. 6. Government of Kerala issued Ext.P6 order on 30.08.2006, in implementation of Judgment of the Apex Court, which accepted the recommendations in the Shetty Commission Report. Thereafter, petitioner's pension was revised from 01.01.1996 as per Ext.P9 pension payment order dated 26.02.2008, at Rs.7100/-, at 50% of the 1[st] ACP scale of Sub Judge/CJM/Addl.CJM/Sel.Gr.CJM [Civil Judge (Senior Division)]. Thereafter revisions were effected as per Ext.P11 order in 2010. Ever since the revision as per Ext.P6 order the petitioner has been requesting to fix his pension as admissible to a Civil Judge Senior Division (II ACP), as there is no post corresponding to that of Selection Grade CJM, which existed prior to integration and since he had been drawing more pay than the Sub Judges. Subsequent to Ext.P19 representation of the petitioner, the Registrar of the High Court addressed the Accountant General as per Ext.P20 letter informing that the petitioner does not come under the newly created category of Sub Judge/Judicial Magistrate and that the ACP scales sanctioned in Government order issued on 12.12.2001 would not be applicable to him. It was also stated that Justice Padmanbahan Commission also did not W.P(c).No.1234/2016 6 recommend to place the Officers belonging to this category on equal footing with sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate with ACP scale. It was further stated that any matter relating to the pay and allowances and anomalies arising out of the judgment in _**All India Judges' Association**_ case (2002) 4 SCC 247 shall be taken up before the Supreme Court itself. 7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner points out that in I.A.No.197 filed by a District Judge of Uttar Pradesh who retired on 30.5.1985 sought for refixation of his pension at 50% of the minimum of super time pay scale, in implementation of Shetty commission report, the Supreme Court, as per its order dated 05.02.2008, directed that the petition be transmitted to the High Court of Allahabad, observing that that such petitions shall be considered by the concerned High Court. In that case the Supreme Court directed the High Court of Allahabad to treat it as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that this Court had entertained W.P.(C).No. 1746/09 and 7386/09, filed by two District Judges retired from 01.01.1996, regarding their eligibility for full pension and this Court held that qualifying service had relevance only for the post 1.1.96 pensioners and the benefit provided in paragraph 23.1 of the Shetty Commission report shall not be denied to the petitioners. In the light of these facts the learned Counsel asserts that the writ petition is liable to be considered on merits. 8. The 3[rd] respondent-the High court, has filed a counter affidavit stating that the post of Selection Grade CJM which was in existence prior to the integration W.P(c).No.1234/2016 7 is not considered for ACP and for the revised pay based on Shetty Commission report. It is stated that when the posts in the Criminal wing and civil wing were integrated on 1.1.1992, the then Selection Grade CJMs, who were in service as on 01.01.1992, were also absorbed as Sub Judges/CJMs in accordance with the ratio prescribed therein. When Shetty Commission report was implemented the Sub Judges as well as CJMs and Selection Grade CJMs were placed in a single category viz. Civil Judge (Senior Division). It is stated that though CJMs and Selection Grade CJMs were integrated and a new category of Sub Judges/CJMs were formed, the rules permitted the Selection Grade CJMs to continue to draw the pay and allowances in the scale of pay attached to the post from time to time till they vacated the post by promotion, retirement or otherwise irrespective of their seniority position. It is stated that the category of Selection Grade CJM has been removed from the new hierarchy and the petitioner, who retired prior to the integration, is not entitled to ACP scale as he was not in service as on 01.01.1996. As per order dated 7.9.2001 the scale of pay of sel.gr. CJMs was revised to Rs.14000-18000. As per Ext.R3(c) report, the revised pension of retired judicial officers should be 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement as revised from time to time. CJMs come under the nomenclature of civil Judge-Sr. Division. Since the petitioner retired on 31.8.1990 from the post of Selection Grade CJM, prior to integration of civil and criminal wings and did not belong to the newly created category of CJMs/subordinate Judges and the category of sel.Gr.CJM has been removed from the new hierarchy, and since the petitioner was not in service as on 1.1.1996, he cannot be given the ACP scale. There W.P(c).No.1234/2016 8 is no recommendation to those who retired prior to 1.1.1996. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner can be considered only as one in the category of civil Judge Senior Division in the entry cadre without ACP scale. They have also pointed out that the claim raised by the petitioner is liable to be taken up before the Supreme Court , as held in the judgment in _**All India Judges' Association**_ case: (2002) 4 SCC 247. 9. In the counter affidavit of the 1[st] respondent it is stated that the Accountant General erroneously authorised the pensionary benefits of the petitioner reckoning the scale of pay of the post as 14200-18350 in the place of Rs.1285017550; it is stated that the Accountant General had addressed the Registrar, as per letter dated 06.02.2012 seeking the replacement scale of pay of Selection Grade CJM and that the Registrar had clarified that the benefit of ACP scale cannot be extended to the petitioner as he retired from service prior to 01.01.1996. It is also stated that any further clarification in the matter can only be sought from the Apex Court. 10. The 2[nd] respondent also has filed a counter affidavit in more or less similar lines. In this counter affidavit also it is stated that the petitioner was given the pensionary benefits reckoning the higher scale of 14200-18350 instead of 1285017550. It is stated that proceedings were initiated for recovery of excess pension which is stayed by interim order dated 14.6.2016. 11. Heard Sri. N.Sukumaran, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. 12. First of all it is necessary to examine whether this writ petition can be W.P(c).No.1234/2016 9 entertained, in view of the decision in _**All India Judges**_ Case ( _supra_ ), according to which, any clarification, in respect of any matter arising out of that judgment and proceedings for implementation of the directions in that judgment shall not be entertained by any court than the Supreme Court. In this case the issue is one relating to the fixation of pension in the case of the petitioner, which should be 50% of the scale of pay of the post which the petitioner held at the time of retirement. The petitioner retired as Selection grade CJM prior to integration of civil and criminal wing of judicial service. The 3[rd] respondent has stated that the post of selection Grade CJM which existed before integration was not brought to the new hierarchy of posts after integration or on implementation of the Shetty commission recommendations. From para 15.25(10) of chapter 15 of the Shetty Commission report it is seen that the pay structure of Judicial Officers of Kerala, which the Commission considered was of “Munsiff/Magistrate: 2500-4000; Sub Judge/CJM: 3900-5700; District & Sessions Judges & Additional District Sessions Judges:in 5100-5700 and District Judge Selection Grade : 5900-6700”. Therefore, it is evident that Shetty Commission has not considered the pay structure of Selection Grade CJM, which was available before integration in Kerala Criminal Judicial Service and that the scale of pay considered was that of Sub Judge/CJM after the integration. From the counter affidavits it is clear that the post held by the petitioner ceased to exist consequent to integration. The peculiar circumstance arising in the case is that there is no corresponding post available for fixing the pension of the petitioner. This anomaly is confined to the State of Kerala alone, that too, only in respect of a very few persons who retired from W.P(c).No.1234/2016 10 the post of CJM Special Grade, prior to the integration on 01.01.1992. There was no ACP also for those who were not in service as on 01.01.1996. As this Court has already entertained W. P. © Nos. 1746/09 and 7386/09, in the light of the order of the Apex Court in I.A.No.197, with respect to the eligibility for full pension, etc. in the case of pre 1.1.96 pensioners irrespective of qualifying service, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be entertained by this Court. The order in IA 197 is available in the aforesaid judgments which reads as follows: ## _**“I.A. 197:**_ _Petitioner was a District Judge in Uttar Pradesh, who retired on 30.4.1985.The petitioner seeks re-fixation of his pension at 50% of the minimum supertime pay scale, as recommended by the High Court.As the petitioner has retired as Judicial Officer from the State of U.P, this I.A is directed to be sent to the High Court of Allahabad to be treated as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner shall be informed of the fact that the I.A is sent to the High Court for treating it as Writ Petition. The High Court, on receipt of the application, regster it as a writ petition and shall send notice to the petitioner. The State be impleaded as respondent and notice be also issued to the State Government . Appropriate corrections may also be made in the cause title additional pleadings may be permitted._ _I.A. Is disposed of accordingly.”_ 13. The issue arising in this case cannot be said to be one arising out of implementation of the judgment in _**All India Judges**_ case ( _supra_ ). There is no post corresponding to the post which was held by the petitioner, of which the pay is being revised from time to time, so as to fix the pension of the petitioner as equal to its 50%. Therefore, I find that the objection raised by the respondents against entertaining of this writ petition is liable to be repelled, in view of the peculiar circumstances arising in this case and in the light of the order passed by the Apex Court in IA no.197 and the judgment dated 7.7.2010 in W.P.(C) No.1746/2009 and the judgment dated 09.03.2011 in W.P.(C) No.7519 of 2008. W.P(c).No.1234/2016 11 14. The next question is regarding the pay in the revised scale of CJM Selection Grade which the petitioner was holding at the relevant time. It is an admitted fact that the post of CJM selection Grade held by the petitioner who retired from service in 1990, is not available after 1992 because of the integration. The scale of pay which is available and those looked into by the Shetty Commission, as seen from para 15.25 of Chapter 15 are all with respect to the posts after integration. The respondents have stated that those Selection Grade CJMs, who were in service at the time of integration on 01.01.1992, were allowed to continue in the same pay scale in which they were drawing their pay, as revised from time to time. It is also admitted that the post of Selection grade CJM which existed prior to integration is not one included in the new hierarchy of posts formed after the integration of civil and criminal wing as per Ext R3(a) rules and that petitioner did not belong to the newly created category of CJM/Sub Judges. However, the contention of the petitioner that the post held by him was higher in status with a pay scale higher than that of Sub Judges is evident from Exts.P1, P2 and P4 and it is not disputed. Going by para. 22.18 of Chapter 23 of the Shetty Commission report, the revised pension shall be 50% of the pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement as revised from time to time. The claim of the petitioner for pension considering his status and pay at the relevant time is not seen considered by the respondents in the correct perspective. His claim for higher pension is rejected saying that ACP is not admissible to him since he was not in service as on 01.01.1996. When the posts of Selection Grade CJM which existed prior to integration and the Sub Judge/CJM W.P(c).No.1234/2016 12 subsequent to integration are different and the petitioner was drawing more pay than that of Sub Judge at that time, as evident from Exts.P1 and P4 and though the petitioner is not eligible for ACP, the respondents ought to have considered those circumstances before rejecting his request or while fixing his pension. The fact that the petitioner was holding a post with a higher pay scale in criminal wing, while the post of Sub Judge in the civil wing carried a lower scale of pay, irrespective of the number of years of service, as evident from Exts.P1, P2 and P4, was relevant which required special consideration of the respondents, irrespective of the eligibility for ACP. The sub Judge was in the scale of pay of only 3900-5075 as in the case of CJM, when the selection Grade CJM was in the pay scale of 4200-5300 just below that of District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for pension at a rate above that which has been granted to him and above that of the then existed post of Sub Judge, deserves consideration and his status above the then Sub Judges in Civil wing requires to be maintained by granting him pension considering the scale of the post held by him not less than that given as II ACP of Civil Judges Senior Divison. In the above circumstances, the orders Exts.P14 and P20 are quashed; respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner and to revise his pension, with reference to a scale of pay, higher than that based on which his pension is fixed in Ext.P9, in the light of the above observations, with effect from 01.01.1996 and effectuate the same in corresponding revisions, in tune with the status he was enjoying above that of Sub Judge and below that of District and Sessions W.P(c).No.1234/2016 13 Judge. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The arrears of pension due to the petitioner shall thereafter be disbursed within a further period of one month. Sd/- _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/rkc_ W.P(c).No.1234/2016 14 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT-P1:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| |---|---| ||**BEARING NO.GO(MS) NO.939/86/115/FIN**| ||**DT.23.12.1986.**| |**EXHIBIT-P2:**|**TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.515/85/FIN DATED**| ||**16.9.1985 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**EXHIBIT-P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 13.7.1990.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)**| ||**NO.1020/2001/(III)/FIN DATED 7.9.2001.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.G.O.(MS)**| ||**NO.231/2001 HOME DATED 12.12.2001.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**EXHIBIT-P6:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT BEARING NO.GO(MS)**| ||**NO.157/2006/HOME DATED 30.8.2006.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**EXHIBIT-P7:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 6.11.1990.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 28.1.2008.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ORDER**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**26.2.2008.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT BEARING**| ||**NO.GO(MS)NO.179/2010/HOME DATED 5.8.2010.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.GO(MS)**| ||**NO.236/2010/HOME DATED 2.11.2010.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 15.11.2011.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**EXHIBIT-P13:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 15.5.2012.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**EXHIBIT-P14:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED**| W.P(c).No.1234/2016 15 ||**BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |---|---| ||**DATED 22.11.2012.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**EXHIBIT-P15:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.2.2013.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**EXHIBIT-P16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED**| ||**BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 6.9.2013.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**EXHIBIT-P17: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED**| ||**TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS**| ||**ADVOCATE DATED 10.10.2013.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**EXHIBIT-P18: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED**| ||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**EXHIBIT-P19: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 26.6.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P20**|**EXHIBIT-P20: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED**| ||**BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 17.9.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P21**|**EXHIBIT-P21: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE**| ||**HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 21.11.2006 IN**| ||**I.A.NO.197 IN W.P.(C) NO.1022 OF 1989.**| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**EXHIBIT – P22: TRUE COPY OF THE**| ||**COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**TO THE PETITIONER DT.17.3.2016.**| |**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS**|| |**EXT.R3(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE (RULES) G.O.(P)**| ||**No.190/91/HOME DT.31.12.1991.**| |**EXT.R3(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2002**| ||**(4) SCC 247 DT.21.3.2002.**| |**EXT.R3(c)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE**| ||**PENSION STRUCTURE FOR PAST PENSIONERS.**|