State Can't Pay Less To Tribunal Member Saying Case Load Was Low; Question Of Retired Judges' Dignity: Supreme Court

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge by the State of Haryana against the Division Bench order of Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the Government to treat the appointment of Retired Justice SD Anand as Chairperson of Appellate Authority of Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB)at par with Chairpersons of other Tribunals for Tax and Backward Classes in terms of conditions of appointment.

The division bench in December 2023 had upheld the single bench order of February 2022 which directed that Justice Anand's pending dues be paid on party with other such appointments of State Tribunals. Justice Anand had moved the the High Court over the non-fixation of the terms and conditions of his appointment despite lapse of 22 months after his appointment.

Dr Hemant Gupta , Additional Advocate General for the state of Haryana argued that the reason for lesser salary of the Retired Judge was the less work load of his office.

“114 cases were filed in 2 years, only 5 cases per month were filed”

At this juncture, the CJI interjected to stress the need to treat the retired High Court Judges with dignity when it comes to appointing them for Tribunal Positions post retirement.

“Can you tomorrow say that look this- this court had less work so we will pay 30% less salary? This is not the kind of attitude the state of Haryana should have towards the judiciary. The question is about maintaining the dignity of the former High Court Judges when they occupy such positions.”

The CJI added that the State Authorities should be mindful of the Judicial Experience that each retired High Court Judge carries and it would be incorrect to minimize their stature as per number of cases filed in the tribunal.

“The question is not how much work is associated in the office…then don't appoint a retired judge. But once you appoint them, you must have certain dignity about their work. They carry the premator of having been judges of the High Court who come at work there (at tribunals). The question is not whether there are 5000 matters or 50 matters, the question is of the office.”

The bench dismissed the matter noting that the State was filing the SLP with an unexplainable delay of 149 days.

Counsel for Petitioners : Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G.;

Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR; Mr. Shivang Jain, Adv;.Mr. Varun Goel, Adv.;Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv.; Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.; Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.

Case Details : STATE OF HARYANA VS. S D ANAND DIARY NO. - 20661/2024