The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a former Judge of the High Court to blend her service periods and have her pensionary payments computed based on her last drawn salary as a Judge of the High Court, emphasizing non-discrimination and independence of the judiciary in interpreting the provisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.) :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 14 August 2018 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

3. The first respondent was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate in the State of Haryana on 11 May 1981. She was appointed as an Additional District Judge on 26 August 1997 and later, as a District Judge on 19 July 2010. In December 2013, she was recommended for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. Sometime before her appointment as a Judge of the High Court, she retired as a District Judge on 31 July 2014. On 25 September 2014, the first respondent assumed office as a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. She attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 4 July 2016.

4. As a former Judge of the High Court, the first respondent instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, aggrieved by the determination of her pensionary benefits. She sought that notwithstanding the gap between her superannuation as a District judge and appointment as a Judge of the High Court, the entire period of service as from 11 May 1981 to 31 July 2014 as well as service rendered from 25 September 2014 to 04 July 2016, be reckoned for pensionary and other retirement benefits. The Union of India contested the petition on the ground that the gap ought to be considered as a break in service.

5. By its judgment dated 14 August 2018, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the entire period of service rendered by the first respondent from 25 September 2014 to 4 July 2016 as a Judge of the High Court shall be blended with the years of her service from 11 May 1981 till 31 July 2014 as a Judge of the district judiciary for the purpose of computing her pension as a Judge of the High Court. The Union of India is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

6. Article 217 of the Constitution provides for the appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court. Clause (2) of Article 217 stipulates that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless such a person has:

(a) held a judicial office for a period of ten years in the territory of India; and

(b) been an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least ten years.

7. Sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of Article 217 deals with persons who have held judicial office before appointment as a Judge of the High Court, while clause (b) essentially sets out conditions of eligibility for the appointment of Advocates to the Bench of the High Court.

8. Article 221 of the Constitution provides for salaries, allowances and pensions to be paid to the Judges of the High Courts. Clause 2 of Article 221 states that

“(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may be from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule.”

9. The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954¹[‘The Act’], has been enacted by Parliament “to regulate salaries and certain conditions of service of the Judges of the High Court”. Section 2(1)(g) of the Act defines the expression ‘Judge’ to mean a Judge of a High Court and to include the Chief Justice, an acting Chief Justice, an Additional Judge and an acting Judge of the High Court. Chapter III of the statute deals with salaries and pensions. Section 14 stipulates that subject to the provisions of the Act, every Judge would, on retirement be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part I of the Schedule. The proviso, however, qualifies the entitlement to pension by stipulating that “no such pension shall be payable to a Judge unless”:

(a) he has completed not less than twelve years of service for pension; or

(b) he has attained the age