Supreme Court 'Shocked' That Some Retired HC Judges Get Only Rs 6-15K Monthly Pension, Flags Differential Treatment To Judges Elevated From Service

The Supreme Court today expressed shock in a case filed by a retired Allahabad High Court judge raising the issue of pension, when it was informed that some retired High Court judges across the country are getting pension amounts as low as Rs.6000-7000/- per month.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan was dealing with retired Judge-Justice Ajit Singh's plea, who is stated to be getting Rs.15,000/- per month as pension.

Notably, two petitions relating to the All India Judges Association Case (one pertaining to pension-related issues) were listed today before the bench. The one involving pension-related issues was mentioned by Attorney General R Venkataramani (appointed as Amicus therein) to seek adjournment. At the same time, submissions were addressed in the present case as well.

Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (also appointed as Amicus in the pension-related All India Judges Association case) informed the Court that the state of affairs in the country is dismal. Sitting judges of High Courts (like Patna and Allahabad) have had to litigate for salaries, provident fund and pension. Further, he assailed an earlier stance of the Union which apparently distinguished between judges, dividing them into two categories - first, who elevated from the Bar, and second, who elevated from district judiciary.

The senior counsel explained that the issue in the pension-related All India Judges Association case is essentially whether judges should be governed by the old pension scheme or the new pension scheme, where there is no fixed pension for members of the district judiciary. It was stated that some states are giving pension under the old scheme, others have shifted to the new scheme and there are conflicting judgments as well on the issue.

Parmeswar further mentioned that petitioner-judge Justice Ajit Singh is one of the first few judges born into the new pension scheme who retired as a High Court judge.

Hearing the submission about the Union's stance, Justice Gavai said to the AG: "Please examine this. If this is the stand of the Union, it's patently wrong."

On the aspect of post-retirement benefits to High Court judges, the judge observed,

"...post-retirement facilities which are available to the retired judges, they differ from High Court to High Court...they are better in some states...I recollect one of our judges from Bombay High Court who was transferred from another state from Gujarat...he insisted that he should retire from Gujarat so that he gets a...now fortunately, Maharashtra is also at par...there are some states where no post-retirement facilities are available to the judges."

On being informed by Parmeswar that some retired High Court judges are getting as low as Rs.6000-7000/- per month as pension, Justice Gavai exclaimed, "If there are High Court judges before us who have come from service category, and they are getting Rs.6000 and Rs.15000...[it's] shocking!"

"How can that be? After 15 years, should they not add the service [period]? They can't be worse-off than the Bar-appointed", Justice Viswanathan added.

Advocate Snehashish Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of certain Judicial Magistrates of Uttar Pradesh, informed the Court that though an impression of compliance with Court orders was given, the magistrates have not been given 4 years of arrears of salary. In response, Justice Gavai asked Parmeswar to look into the issue, before adding, "otherwise, we will have to send an invitation to the Chief Secretary".

Appearing in one of the All India Judges Association case (the one not related to pension), Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy urged that writ petitions have been filed by 28 senior civil judges from Uttar Pradesh, contesting recruitment and promotion exams which they were not eligible to take because of a cutoff date issue.

Subsequently, Justice Gavai conveyed to the AG the Court's hope that the Union and the States would not pursue the cases as adversarial litigation. The AG assured that it was not going to be the case. Further, he urged that substantive changes have come in the Unified Pension Scheme and sought time to place it on record.

To state briefly, the petitioner-judge has challenged alleged arbitrary pension norms that govern the entitlements of retired judges. He seeks a declaration that High Court judges are entitled to addition of length of service as a Judicial Officer (before elevation to the High Court) to the length of service as High Court Judge for the 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.

Reportedly, the petitioner had a term of nearly 5 years as a High Court judge (from 22.11.2018 to 29.03.2023) and the authorities refused to take into account his 13 years of service as a judicial officer (from 2005, before his elevation to the High Court) to compute his pensionary benefits. As a result, he is getting a pension of nearly Rs.15,000/- per month.

"...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 states.

On February 19, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, issued notice on the petition.

Recently, the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud passed a judgment that the pension and service benefits of judges can't be differentiated based on the source of their appointment.

Case Title : JUSTICE AJIT SINGH (RETD.) Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., WP (Civil) No. 102/2024