SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 256

P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, N. V. RAMANA
P. Ramakrishnam Raju – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


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

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top