'Rs 15K Monthly Pension For Retired HC Judge Arbitrary' : Ex-HC Judge Moves Supreme Court To Fix Pension Adding Service As Judicial Officer
A former High Court judge has approached the Supreme Court contending that the length of service as a Judicial Officer before elevation to the High Court has to be added to the length of service as the High Court Judge for the computation of pension and other retiral benefits.The petitioner, among other reliefs, sought a declaration that retired judges are entitled to addition of the length...
A former High Court judge has approached the Supreme Court contending that the length of service as a Judicial Officer before elevation to the High Court has to be added to the length of service as the High Court Judge for the computation of pension and other retiral benefits.
The petitioner, among other reliefs, sought a declaration that retired judges are entitled to addition of the length of service as Judicial Officer prior to elevation as High Court Judge to the length of service as High Court Judge for computation of pension and other retiral benefits under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by Justice Ajit Singh, a retired Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the alleged arbitrary pension norms that govern the entitlements of retired judges.
On February 19, a bench comprising Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notice to the Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh and the Allahabad High Court on the petition.
The petitioner, who had a term of nearly five years as a High Court judge (from 22.11.2018 to 29.03.2023), is aggrieved by the refusal of the authorities to reckon his thirteen years of service as a judicial officer from 2005 before his elevation to the High Court to compute his pensionary benefits. As a result, the petitioner is getting a pension of nearly Rs.15,000 per month, about which he has expressed great dissatisfaction.
"...expecting a retired High Court Judge to live with a pension of 15000/- per month is on the face of its arbitrary and shocks the conscience," the plea stated.
In the present petition, the letter dated 25.06.2019 of the Ministery of Law & Justice, Government of India has been put to a challenge. As per the communication, High Court Judges elevated from services and previously covered by the Contributory Pension Scheme are not allowed to participate in the General Provident Fund (Central Services). The said communication, while referring to Part III of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, further stated that pension payable to a Judge, who has held any pensionable post under the Union or State, would be the pension to which he was entitled under the ordinary rules of his service, if he had not been appointed as a Judge of the High Court.
“It is submitted that Letter dated 25.6.2019 amounts to supplant/amend provisions of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 merely by issuing an executive order which goes beyond the constitutional scheme,” the petitioner stated.
Arbitrary to say that period of service as judicial officers won't be computed to reckon pension
The petitioner contended that "it is arbitrary to take stand that a period of ten years will be added in case of judges who are elevated from Bar for the computation of pension and other retiral benefits but the period of service as rendered by High Court Judges during judicial service before elevation will not be added to the length of service for computation of pension and other retiral benefits."
The petitioner further argued that "it is arbitrary to say that the period of service rendered by the petitioner as members of Superior Judicial Service shall be counted for period of elevation as High Court Judges but the same period of service shall not be counted for the purpose of computation of their pension and other retiral benefits."
It is stressed that the elevation process to become a High Court Judge involves a complex evaluation, with candidates being selected by the High Court collegium after a meticulous assessment of their performance in the legal profession. The recommendations subsequently undergo scrutiny by state and central governments, and the apex court's collegium finalizes the selections. However, the petitioner argues that this intricate process, marked by uncertainties and delays, should not be a determinant of pension entitlement.
The petitioner contends that linking pension entitlement to the length of service, a factor dependent on uncertain elements, is inherently unfair and arbitrary. Unlike other constitutional positions, High Court judges cannot influence or expedite the process, making it unjust to subject their entitlements to executive delays. The petitioner asserts that no other constitutional position faces such an unpredictable and uncontrollable factor for pension eligibility.
Ceiling limit on pension questioned
Furthermore, the petition highlights the existence of a ceiling on the maximum pension for High Court Judges, irrespective of their length of service. This cap, as per Section 15(4) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Condition of Services) Act, 1954, imposes a maximum amount of pension, even for judges with significant service. The petitioner argues that this contradicts the principle of 'One Rank One Pension' upheld by the Supreme Court.
“ There is no purpose sought to be achieved by making a distinction so far as post retrial benefits are considered. Discrimination between similarly situated persons is gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, expecting a retired High Court Judge to live with a pension of 15000/- per month is on the face of its arbitrary and shocks the conscience. Section 15(4) of the 1954 Act thus interpreted leads to discrimination and absurdity and is liable to be declared so by this court which has recognized the salutary dictum of 'one rank one pension”
The 'One Rank One Pension' doctrine asserts equal pension benefits for individuals who retire at the same rank, irrespective of variances in their length of service. The petitioner argues that applying a maximum ceiling on pension goes against this principle, especially when there is no minimum or maximum age requirement for the appointment of High Court Judges.
The petitioner calls for a rational approach, urging the court to delink pension from the length of service, particularly considering the absence of age criteria for High Court Judge appointments. This legal challenge raises critical questions about the fairness and uniformity of pension norms for constitutional authorities and seeks to address disparities in pension entitlements among retired judges.
On February 26, the Supreme Court while hearing the matter of the pension scheme for judicial officers, flagged concerns on the plight of the retired district judicial officers who were getting inadequate financial support through the present pension policies. The Court urged the Union to find a 'Just Solution' for the officers who have substantially contributed to the cause of Justice.
The CJI DY Chandrachud brought attention to the dire financial conditions faced by retired district judges, emphasizing that they were receiving pensions as low as Rs 19,000-20,000 after years of dedicated service. He pointed out the challenges of transitioning to other avenues at an age when they are physically unable to engage in active legal practice
He had expressed, “ The retired District judges are clocking a pension of Rs 19000-20000 ...after a long service, how do they survive? This is the kind of office where you are completely disabled, you cannot suddenly jump into practice and go to the High Court at the age of 61-62 years and start practising"
Judges of some High Courts have approached the Supreme Court over the non-release of salary since new GPF accounts were not allotted to them after their elevation from the district judiciary.
Case Details : Justice Ajit Singh v. Union of India , WP (Civil) No. 102/2024
Counsels For Petitioner: Sr Adv Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena; Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR; Mr. Piyush Thanvi, Adv.; Mr. Mohd Imran Ahmad, Adv.; Mr. Shrawani, Adv.