Retired HC Judges Can't Be Discriminated Regarding Pension Based On Whether They're Elevated From Service Or Bar : Supreme Court

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday (March 15) held there cannot be any discrimination between the retired High Court judges, depending on their source of elevation (whether from the bar or the District Judiciary), while computing their pensionary benefits.

The Court held that held that the pensionary entitlement of a retired High Court judge, who is elevated from the District Judiciary, must be computed by adding the service as a District Judiciary member along with the service as a High Court judge. Such pension must be computed on the basis of the last drawn salary as a judge of the High Court judge.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was deciding the case of a former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The case related to the interpretation of the provisions of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

Factual Background 

Respondent No.1(former judge) was a member of the District Judiciary from 11 May 1989 to 31 July 2014. She was appointed as a judge of the High Court on September 25, 2014 and retired on July 4 2016. The Union Government calculated her pension as per her last drawn salary as a District Judge and not a High Court judge.

Before the Supreme Court, the Union raised the following arguments :

(1) Respondent No.1 has not completed 12 years of pensionable service as a HC judge and hence was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act.

(2). There was a break in service of the petitioner for assuming the office of the High Court judge.

(3).The pension payable to Respondent No.1 would be computed as per Section 15 and hence based on the last drawn salary as a District Judge.

The Court observed that the submission of the Union missed the plain consequences of the Explanation of Section 14. The Court noted that the Explanation uses the words "means and includes".

"In other words, Section 14 applies to a judge who has not held any pensionable post either in the Union or the State or a person, who having held a pensionable post, opts to receive pension under part 1 of the schedule," the Court observed.

"A judge, such as the first respondent, who has not opted to receive the benefits of pension part 1 of the schedule, would fall outside the purview of the explanation and hence Section 14 would have no application. The post-retiral benefits of such a judge would be governed by Section 15. Upon electing to receive pension under Part 3 of the First Schedule, the first respondent was entitled to have the years of service which were rendered by her as a judge of the High Court cumulated to the years of service rendered as a member of the District Judiciary," the Court observed.

Union's position leads to discrimination

The Court observed that accepting the Union's position "would result in a clear discrimination between a member of the bar who becomes a judge of the High Court judge and a member of a district judiciary who is appointed a HC judge."

In this regard, the Court noted that a member of the bar would be entitled to the addition of 10 years of service by virtue of Section 14A of the Act. As per Section 14A, ten years of service will be deemed to be added to the service of every retired High Court judge who was appointed from the Bar after April 1, 2004. On addition of the years of service, their pensionary benefits would be computed on the basis of the last drawn salary as a judge of the High Court.

The Court stated that a similar principle must be applied to High Court judges drawn from the District Judiciary as well.

“A similar principle must be applied in computing the pension of the judge elevated from the district judiciary to the High Court. Any other interpretation would result in plain discrimination between the judges of the High Court based on the source from which they are elevated. Such an interpretation would do a disservice to the importance of the District Judiciary in contributing to the judiciary of the nation and besides would be contrary to the overall scheme and intendment of Chapter 3 of the Statute.”

The Court held that the first Respondent was "entitled to the addition of the period during which she served as a judge of the High Court to be added to the length of her service as a member of the District Judiciary from 11 May 1981 to 31 July 2014."

It directed that her pension must be computed on the basis of her last drawn salary as a judge of the High Court. The arrears of pension were directed to be paid on or before May 31,2024 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

The Court also rejected the Union's argument based on her "break in service". There was a break in service of break in service for 1 month and 24 days between her service as District Judge and appointment as High Court judge. The Court observed that this break was inconsequential for the simple reason the service upon appointment as a High Courtjudge was in pursuance to a recommendation made during her tenure as a member of the District Judiciary.  

Pensionary benefits vital element of judicial independence

The Court also made certain significant remarks on the importance of pensionary benefits :

"Pensionary benefits to judges constitute a vital element in judicial independence. As a consequence of long years of Judicial Office, Judges on demitting of office, do not necessarily have the options which are open to members which are open to persons of other services.

The reason why the State assumes the obligation to pay pension judges is to ensure that the protection of the benefits which are available after retirement would ensure their ability to discharge their duty without 'fear or favour' during their years of judgeship. The purpose of creating dignified conditions of existence for judges during their tenure or thereafter is vital element of public interest. Courts and the judges who man them are vital a component of the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary is a vital doctrine recognised in the constitutional scheme, the payment of salaries and dignified conditions serves a vital part of that purpose."  

The report is based on the oral pronouncement of judgment. To be updated when the judgment is uploaded.

Case details : UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW JUSTICE vs. JUSTICE (RETD.) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) | SLP(C) No. 007246 - / 2019

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Click here to read the judgment