Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, C.J.I., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Shailendra Singh & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2024 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1262 of 2021
Decided on : 05-11-2024
(A) High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Sections 15 and 20 – Constitution of India – Article 221 – Pensionary benefits of High Court Judges – Members of Bar who are appointed to High Court are entitled to subscribe to General Provident Fund in terms of Section 20 of Act of 1954 – Once appointed to High Court, every Judge ranks at par – Once appointed, no distinction can be made between Judges for the purpose of payment of salary and for extending other service conditions both during and after they cease to be in service – Once appointed to High Court, all Judges constitute a homogenous class without distinction – Making distinction between Judges of High Court based on whether they were drawn from Bar or, as the case may be, District Judiciary and to place Judges drawn from either of sources at a relative disadvantage would fundamentally militate against sense of homogeneity which is envisaged by constitutional provisions, particularly, Article 216 – Principle of non-discrimination which animates Article 14 of Constitution applies a fortiori to the manner in which sitting and former Judges of High Court are to be treated, irrespective of source from which they are drawn. (Paras 20, 21, 22, 27 and 34)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 221 – High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Sections 15 and 20 – Pensionary benefits of High Court Judges – Financial independence for judges is a necessary ingredient of maintaining judicial independence – It is not within contemplation of Constitution that payment of salaries and extension of other benefits both during and after service should be left to vagaries of determination by individual States and schemes which are applicable to civil service officers discharging duties in each State – Pensionary payments are charged on Consolidated Fund of India under Article 112(d)(3) – Communication which was addressed by Under Secretary to Government of India in Department of Law and Justice purportedly stated that as Judges appointed by direct recruitment to State Judicial Service after adoption of New Pension Scheme by State Governments and subsequently appointed as High Court Judges are covered by Contributory Provident Scheme of State Government, they would not be eligible to subscribe to General Provident Fund – The letter is not only based on a misappreciation of statutory scheme underlying Section 20 of Act of 1954 but is fundamentally at odds with constitutional status of Judges of High Court as a homogenous class – Letter dated 30 December 2022 quashed and set aside – General Provident Fund account shall be opened with effect from date of appointment of every one of petitioners into which contributions shall be credited at par with all other Judges of High Court irrespective of source from which they were drawn – Amounts which are lying to credit of petitioners in New Pension Scheme shall be returned to them within a period of four weeks from date of this Judgment. (Paras 23, 25, 35, 36 and 37)
(C) High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Sections 15 and 20 – Pensionary benefits of High Court Judges – Petitioner qualified for appointment as a Judge of High Court since he had held judicial office for at least ten years within meaning of Article 217(2)(a) – However, petitioner was also a member of Bar for over fourteen years and eight months prior to his appointment as a Judge of High Court – Pensionary payments due to petitioner be recomputed after giving him benefit of an addition of ten years of service – However, maximum basic pension which is payable to a Judge of High Court of Rs 13,50,000 per annum shall continue to apply to petitioner – Petitioner retired from service on 26th August 2002 – Difference in pensionary payments payable to petitioner shall be computed with effect from the date of his retirement within a period of three months and arrears that are due and payable in terms of present order shall be paid over by 31st March 2025. (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of Constitution has been invoked by eight Judges of High Court of Patna who are aggrieved by a communication dated 13th December 2022 issued by Under Secretary to Government of India in Department of Justice of Union Ministry of Law and Justice. The communication has been issued to Senior Accounts Officer in office of Principal Accountant General (A&E) at Patna.
Simple issue before this Court is whether a member of district judiciary, upon appointment as a Judge of High Court, would be entitled to benefit of General Provident Fund which is available to all High Court judges under Section 20 of High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
Findings of Court:
In terms of clause (2) of Part III, petitioner has to be paid (a) pension to which he would be entitled under Rules of service if he were not appointed as a Judge of High Court; and (b) a special additional pension of Rs 45,016 per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pension.
Result : Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Background
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked by eight judges of the High Court of Patna who are aggrieved by a communication dated 13 December 2022 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Justice of the Union Ministry of Law and Justice. The communication has been issued to the Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) at Patna.
2. The petitioners were appointed as District Judges on 15 April 2010. Seven petitioners in the first of the two petitions, were appointed as Judges of the Patna High Court on 4 June 2022 while the sole petitioner in the second petition was appointed as a Judge of that High Court on 22 November 2023. On appointment as Judges of the High Court, their salaries and conditions of service were to be governed by the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 19541[Act of 1954].
3. Chapter III of the Act governs salaries and pensions. Section 13A envisages that the Chief Justice of a High Court would be paid a salary of Rs 2,50,000 per mensem and that the salary of a Judge of a High Court would be Rs.2,25,000 per mensem. Section 142[14. Pension payable to Judges.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Judge shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part I of the First Schedule:
Provided 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 of sixty-two years; or
(c) his retirement is medically certified to be necessitated by ill-health:
Provided further that if a Judge at the time of his appointment is in receipt of a pension (other than a disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service in the Union or a State, the pension payable under this Act shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, that pension.
Explanation.—In this section “Judge” means a Judge who has not held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State and includes a Judge who having held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State has elected to receive the pension payable under Part I of the First Schedule.] provides for the payment of pension in accordance with the scale and provisions set out in Part I of the First Schedule. Section 15 makes a special provision for the payment of pension for judges of the High Court who have held any other pensionable post under the Union or State in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of the First Schedule. However, every such Judge may elect to receive the pension payable either under Part I or Part III of the Schedule.
4. Section 20 governs the payment of Provident Fund and is in the following terms:
Provided that a Judge who has held any other pensionable civil post under the Union or a State shall continue to subscribe to the Provident Fund to which he was subscribing before his appointment as a Judge.”
5. After the petitioners were appointed as judges of the High Court, no steps were taken by the authorities to open a General Provident Fund account as a consequence of which, on their retirement, they have not received any terminal benefit pertaining to the provident fund. The scope of the controversy, in the present case, turns on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 20.
Submissions
6. Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, has broadly addressed the Court on three propositions:
(ii) There must be uniformity of the service conditions of High Court judges both during ser
Pensionary benefits of High Court Judges – Once appointed to High Court, every Judge ranks at par – Once appointed, no distinction can be made between Judges for the purpose of payment of salary and ....
(1) Pensionary Benefits of Judges in Higher Judiciary – Union of India shall pay full pension of Rs.15,00,000/- per annum to a retired Chief Justice of High Court – Union of India shall pay full pen....
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 ....
Retired Judges of High Courts are entitled to medical facilities on par with sitting Judges, affirming the need for legislative uniformity to uphold judicial independence.
Judges' pensions are a protected right under Article 125(7) of the Federal Constitution, and any alteration to the pension adjustment formula that disadvantages retired judges is unconstitutional.
Family pension is included in the definition of pension under the Judges Act, entitling the spouse of a retired Chairperson to claim it.
Article 229 (2) of Constitution of India nowhere prescribes or indicates any particular form in which rule should be framed nor does it prescribe any formality required to be gone through.
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
