I submit there is no need for clause (1). The only need for this clause so far as I can see, is to justify the reduction of the pay of the existing Judges in an indirect manner. In fact, on the 26th of January, it is clear that even apart from this clause (1) of article 310, those Judges will continue to be the Judges of the High Court because the same High Court continues. We have not provided for similar continuance in the case of other public servants. Every one who is a public servant on the 25th of January will certainly continue to be the same servant on the 26th of January unless he is meanwhile dismissed or has resigned or is discharged or is dead. The continuance of his service as a Judge of a High Court from the 25th to the 26th January is automatic and no authority was needed as it is attempted to be given under clause (1). I submit that clause (1) from that point of view is absolutely unnecessary. But it introduces another idea, namely, it is an indirect attempt to reduce the pay of the existing Judges. In fact, so far as the existing Judges are concerned, they have a fixed scale of pay under existing conditions. Even if there was not this clause, they would have been receiving the same pay on and from the 26th January. The real purpose of the clause is to reduce the pay of the existing Judges. I submit that their pay should not be reduced, because they are receiving a particular pay on a contract on which they were appointed. Judges of the High Court are appointed from very good lawyers who must be supposed to have been earning a very decent incomes. There were only two conditions attached to the appointment of the High Court Judges, namely, they were to continue in the usual course till they attained the age of sixty, and secondly, they would not be allowed thereafter to practise in the High Court in which they were Judges and courts subordinate thereto. But today we are enacting conditions that their pay would be reduced and, further, on the attainment of the sixtieth year every High Court Judge would be precluded from practising not only in the High Court to which he is attached, or the subordinate Courts thereto, but in all other Courts, even outside the purview of that High Court, namely in the High Courts of other States and also in the Supreme Court. This would be breach of contract with them in two respects.
