Supreme Court Issues Notice On Petition By Sitting Patna High Court Judge Over Non-Release Of Salary
The Supreme Court on Friday (January 9) issued a notice in a writ petition concerning the release of the salary of the sitting Patna High Court Judge, Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra and sought a response from the Registrar General of the Patna High Court for the same. The bench comprising the Chief Justice, DY Chandrchud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra were apprised of the fact...
The Supreme Court on Friday (January 9) issued a notice in a writ petition concerning the release of the salary of the sitting Patna High Court Judge, Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra and sought a response from the Registrar General of the Patna High Court for the same.
The bench comprising the Chief Justice, DY Chandrchud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra were apprised of the fact that Justice Rudra Mishra was yet to be allotted a General Provident Fund (GPF) since his elevation in November 2023 from the higher judicial services to the High Court though he has completed all the formalities concerning the same.
As he was not provided with a GPF to date, this has led to him facing financial hurdles in receiving his salary as an incumbent High Court Judge. It was further the contention of the petitioner that he is not governed by the New Pension Scheme and that in his case S.15(1)(b) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 would prevail over S.20 of the said Act of 1954.
S.20 provides that every judge be entitled to subscribe to the GPF unless that judge has already held any other pensionable civil post under the Union or a State, in which case he/she may continue to subscribe to the PF to which was subscribing before his appointment as a judge. Thus the provision is of a general nature.
On the other hand, S.15(1)(b) being a specific provision, states :
“ 15. Special provision of pension in respect of Judges who are members of service.—[(1)] Every Judge— (b) who has held any other [pensionable post] under the Union or a State, shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of the First Schedule:
Provided that every such Judge shall elect to receive the pension payable to him either under Part I of the First Schedule or, Part III of the First Schedule, and the pension payable to him shall be calculated accordingly”
Taking note of the same, the bench issued notice with the liberty to serve the Central Agencies and the State of Bihar.
The advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Prem Prakash also requested the Court if a direction for opening a temporary GPF could be given as an interim measure. To which the CJI replied, “ Let them have one notice at least”, in order to get a response from the other side.
It was additionally mentioned that a previous writ petition on a similar issue was also pending before the same bench. The Court tagged the previous petition with the present case which is to be now heard together on January 29th.
The previous petition was filed by 7 Patna High Court Judges namely, Justices Shailendra Singh, Arun Kumar Jha, Jitendra Kumar, Alok Kumar, Sunil Dutta Mishra, Chandra Prakash Singh and Chandra Shekhar Jha who had sought the restoration of their GPFs. Before their elevation to the High Court from the State Judicial Service, they were covered by the National Pension Scheme. The complication apparently arose after the NPS contributions were transferred to the GPF accounts given to them after their appointment as High Court judges. The accountant general sought clarification from the Ministry of Law and Justice regarding the legality of transferring NPS contributions to GPF accounts.
Case Details: JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).3/2024