SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
P. Ramakrishnam Raju – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 521 OF 2002 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 523 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 524 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 37 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 465 OF 2005 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4248-4249 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9558-9559 of 2010)
Decided On : 31-03-2014
(b) High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Section 14 r/w Clause 2, Part I, Forest Schedule – High Court Judges from Judicial service and the Bar – Though equal, treated differently for computation of pension – Violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. (Para 21)
(2002) 9 SCC 218; (2009) 14 SCC 49; AIR 1992 SC 165; AIR 1993 SC 2493 – Referred
AIR 1992 SC 196 – Distinguished
(c) High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Section 14 r/w Clause 2, Part I, Forest Schedule – High Court Judges drawn from Subordinate Judiciary serving as such for shorter period than members of the Bar elevated to High Court Judge – Former getting more pension than the latter – Held discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 25)
(d) Service Law – Higher Judiciary – Pension – One rank one pension – Should be the norm in respect of a Constitutional Office. (Para 27)
(e) High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Section 13A – Pension for High Court Judges’ drawn from the Bar – Qualifying period – Ten years’ practice as an advocate to be added w.e.f. 01.04.2004 – Requisite amended directed to be carried out in High Court Judges Rules, 1956. (Para 29)
(f) Service Law – High Court Judges – Post-retirement benefits – Andhra Pradesh model directed to be adopted by all States. (Para 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
These writ petitions have been filed by former Judges of the various High Courts of the country as well as by the Association of the Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts elevated from the Bar.
The petitioners have prayed that the number of years practiced as an advocate shall be taken into account and shall be added to the service as a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of determining the maximum pension permissible under Part-I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. It was further stated that in respect of Part-III of the First Schedule, which deals with the Judges elevated from the State Judicial Service, almost all the Judges get full pension even if they have worked as a Judge of the High Court for 2 or 3 years and their entire service is added to their service as a Judge of the High Court for computing pension under this Part. For this reason, the members of the subordinate judiciary get more pension than the Judges elevated from the Bar on retirement.
In view of the above, the petitioners prayed that though Part-I and Part-III Judges hold equivalent posts, they are not similarly situated in regard to pension and retirement benefits which is breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and one rank one pension must be the norm in respect of a constitutional office. It is further prayed that the retired Judges of the High Courts should also be given enhanced allowance for domestic help/peon/driver, telephone expenses and other secretarial assistance.
Finding of the Court:
Treating High Court Judges differently on the basis of their feeder source, i.e., from the Bar or the Subordinate judiciary is discriminative.
High Court Judges deserve better post-retiral benefits.
JUDGMENT
P.Sathasivam, CJI. –
1) The main question which arises for consideration is whether High Court Judges, who are appointed from the Bar under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, on retirement, are entitled for an addition of 10 years to their service for the purposes of their pension?
2) The above petitions have been filed by former Judges of the various High Courts of the country as well as by the Association of the Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts elevated from the Bar.
3) The petitioners have prayed that the number of years practiced as an advocate shall be taken into account and shall be added to the service as a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of determining the maximum pension permissible under Part-I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (in short ‘the HCJ Act’). It was further stated that in respect of Part-III of the First Schedule, which deals with the Judges elevated from the State Judicial Service, almost all the Judges get full pension even if they have worked as a Judge of the High Court for 2 or 3 years and their entire service is added to their service as a Judge of the High Court for computing pension under this Part. For this reason, the members of the subordinate judiciary get more pension than the Judges elevated from the Bar on retirement.
4) In view of the above, the petitioners prayed that though Part-I and Part-III Judges hold equivalent posts, they are not similarly situated in regard to pension and retirement benefits which is breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and one rank one pension must be the norm in respect of a constitutional office. It is further prayed that the retired Judges of the High Courts should also be given enhanced allowance for domestic help/peon/driver, telephone expenses and other secretarial assistance.
5) We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6) The Constitution of India provides for three-tier judicial system. The Union Judiciary-Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court of India (Articles 124 to 147); The High Courts in the States (Articles 214 to 231) and Subordinate Courts (Article 233 to 237). The Constitution of India also provides for appointment of Judges from amongst the members of the Bar at all the three levels.
7) The appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court is governed by Article 124(3),(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution. It envisages appointment from three sources: (i) from amongst the Judges of the High Court having service of at least five years; (ii) the members of the Bar having a standing of not less than 10 years; and (iii) any person, who is, in the opinion of the President, is a distinguished jurist.
8) The appointment of a Judge of the High Court is governed by Article 217(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution which envisages appointments from two different sources: (a) from amongst the Judicial officers who have held the office for at least 10 years; and (b) the members of the Bar, who have been Advocates of a High Court for at least 10 years.
9) The appointment of District Judges is governed by Article 233(2) of the Constitution which provides that a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed as a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
10) The Supreme Court Judges (Salaries & Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, (in short ‘the SCJ Act’), the HCJ Act and the Rules made thereunder, regulate their salary and conditions of service. The provisions under both the Acts were similar prior to the Amendment Act, 2005. The service conditions of the Judges of the subordinate courts are governed by the Service Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
11) Section 13 of the SCJ Act read with Clause 2 of Pa
Kuldip Singh v. Union of India
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. All India Young Lawyers’ Association (Registered)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.