Back
A. M. AHMADI, K. S. PARIPOORNAN
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Pratibha Bonnerjea – Respondent
The Supreme Court has clarified that the service of a High Court Judge is a unique constitutional office, distinct from ordinary civil service or government employment. When a High Court Judge transitions to a role in a Tribunal, such as the Central Administrative Tribunal, this constitutes a new appointment under a different statutory framework. As a result, the previous judicial service does not automatically influence or determine the entitlements in the new role, unless the applicable statute explicitly provides for "clubbing" or combining benefits or entitlements across these separate appointments.
This means that the pension, allowances, or other service-related benefits in the Tribunal role are governed independently by the specific rules and statutes applicable to that Tribunal, and not merely by the entitlements associated with the judicial office. The constitutional distinction and the statutory independence of such appointments imply that entitlements are not automatically "clubbable" or merged unless the law clearly prescribes such a provision.
JUDGMENT
Ahmadi, CJI-Two questions are raised in this appeal, namely, (i) the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and (ii) the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the pension admissible to the respondent as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal had to be determined under Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Services) Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act . The brief facts which we are required noticed run as follows:
2. The first respondent was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Calcutta on 13th January, 1978 and she retired as much with effect from 16th February, 1989. Soon thereafter on 3rd March, 1989 she was appointed a Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal which post she relinquished on 16th February, 1992 on retirement. Admittedly she was drawing pension on retirement as High Court Judge. For the period between 3rd March, 1989 and 16th February, 1992 she served as the Vice-Chairman and was entitled to pension. She contended that her pension should be fixed under Part I whereas the Union s contention was that she was entitled to pension admissible under Part III of the First Schedule to the Act. As her contention w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
