Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
In Re: Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period In District Judiciary And High Court
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 4 of 2024 With Writ Petition (C) No. 993 of 2017 Writ Petition (C) No. 1048 of 2017 Writ Petition (C) No. 548 OF 2018 Writ Petition (C) No. 911 of 2018 Writ Petition (C) No. 86 of 2019 Writ Petition (C) No. 1542 of 2019 Writ Petition (C) No. 660 of 2023 Writ Petition (C) No. 102 OF 2024 Writ Petition (C) No. of 2025 Diary No. 25226 of 2024
Decided On : 19-05-2025
(A) High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Sections 14, 15 and 17A – Constitution of India – Articles 216 and 221 – Pensionary Benefits of Judges of High Court – 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 pension of Rs.13,50,000/- per annum to a retired Judge of High Court, other than a retired Chief Justice of High Court – A retired Judge of High Court shall also include such of retired Judges of a High Court who have retired as Additional Judge of High Court Article 216 of Constitution does not permit any discrimination between source from which Judges of High Court are recruited – Union of India shall follow principle of One Rank One Pension to all retired Judges of High Courts irrespective of their source of entry i.e., District Judiciary or Bar, and irrespective of number of years that they have served either as a District Judge or a High Court Judge and all of them shall be paid full pension – In case of a retired Judge of High Court who has previously served in District Judiciary, Union of India shall pay full pension irrespective of any break-in-service between date on which he/she retired as a Judge of District Judiciary and date on which he/she assumed charge as a Judge of High Court. (Paras 40, 63, 64, 69, 74 and 76)
(B) High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Sections 14, 15 and 17A – Constitution of India – Article 221 – Pensionary Benefits of Judges of High Court – In case of a retired Judge of High Court who has previously served in District Judiciary and 60 who entered into District Judiciary after coming into force of Contributory Pension Scheme or New Pension Scheme (NPS), Union of India shall pay full pension – Insofar as his/her contribution under NPS is concerned, States directed to forthwith refund entire amount contributed by such of retired Judges of High Court back to them along with dividend accrued thereon – However, contributions made by State Governments shall be retained by respective States along with dividend accrued thereon – Union of India shall pay family pension to widow or family members of a Judge of High Court who dies in harness irrespective of whether such a Judge of High Court was a Permanent Judge of High Court or Additional Judge of High Court – Union of India shall pay gratuity to widow or family members of a Judge of High Court who dies in harness by adding 10 years period to period of service undergone by said Judge irrespective of whether minimum qualifying service as provided under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 17A of HCJ Act had been completed or not – Union of India shall pay all allowances payable to a retired Judge of a High Court in accordance with provisions of HCJ Act and same shall include Leave Encashment in accordance with Section 4A of HCJ Act, Commutation of Pensions in accordance with Section 19, Provident Fund under Section 20 of HCJ Act, etc. – All arrears payable to retired Judges of High Court or their widow/family members shall be calculated in accordance with directions and same shall be paid to them, along with interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from date of their entitlement till date of actual payment, within a period of 6 months from today. (Para 76)
Facts of the case:
Present batch of matters concerns various issues with regard to pension payable to retired Judges of High Courts including payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits.
Findings of Court:
Union of India shall pay all allowances payable to a retired Judge of a High Court in accordance with provisions of HCJ Act and the same shall include Leave Encashment in accordance with Section 4A of HCJ Act, Commutation of Pensions in accordance with Section 19, Provident Fund under Section 20 of the HCJ Act, etc.
Result : Writ Petitions disposed of with directions.
Key Points: - The Union of India must pay full pensions to retired High Court Chief Justices and other High Court Judges, with One Rank One Pension applied across source of entry (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Full pension ceiling and amounts: Chief Justice Rs.15,00,000 per annum; other Judges Rs.13,50,000 per annum (!) (!) (!) . - Added years and parity: Section 14A and related judgments mandate adding 10 years’ service for pension for Judges elevated from Bar; equivalent parity urged for District Judiciary entrants (P. Ramakrishnam Raju; M.L. Jain line) (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - Family pension and gratuity: Family pension at 50% then 30%; gratuity enhanced by 10 years service; applicability to widows of Additional Judges too (!) - (!) (!) - (!) . - Provident Fund and other allowances: All HCJ Act allowances including Leave Encashment, Commutation, Provident Fund to be paid; clarifications post-NPS; refunds of NPS contributions to affected retirees (!) - (!) .
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
| INDEX | |
| I. | INTRODUCTION AND A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES |
| II. | LEGAL PROVISIONS |
| a. | Article 221 of the Constitution of India |
| b. | High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 |
| i. | Section 2 |
| ii. | Section 13A |
| iii. | Section 14 |
| iv. | Section 15 |
| v. | Section 17A |
| vi. | First Schedule – Part I and Part III |
| III. | JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS |
| a. | M.L. Jain and Another v. Union of India [M L Jain (I)] |
| b. | M.L. Jain v. Union of India [M L Jain (II) |
| c. | Kuldip Singh v. Union of India |
| d. | P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and Others |
| e. | Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others |
| f. | Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others |
| g. | Justice Shailendra Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others |
| IV. | DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| a. | Non-consideration of services rendered as District Judges for payment of Full Pension |
| b. | Denial of Full Pension owing to break-in-service |
| c. | Denial of Full Pension to Retired High Court Judges who enter the State Judiciary after NPS came into effect |
| d. | Denial of Full Pension to Judges who retired as Additional Judges |
| e. | Denial of Family Pension and Gratuity to widows/family members of Additional Judges of High Court |
| f. | Denial of Provident Fund as payable under the HCJ Act |
| V. | CONCLUSION |
I. INTRODUCTION AND A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES
1. This batch of matters concerns various issues with regard to pension payable to retired Judges of the High Courts including the payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits.
2. Various matters concern different issues. In some of the matters, more than one issue is involved. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, we propose to identify the various issues involved in different matters.
3. The first issue, that is involved in the following matters, pertains to non-grant of full pension to the petitioners who have retired as High Court Judges without taking into consideration the services rendered by them as District Judges:
(ii) Justice M Vijayaraghavan v. Union of India [WP(C) No.993/2017];
(iii) Justice Malai Subramaniam v. Union of India [WP(C) No.1048/2017;
(iv) Justice Alok Kumar Mukherjee v. Union of India [WP(C) No.911/2018];
(v) Justice Surendra Kumar v. Union of India [WP(C) No.86/2019;
(vi) Justice Het Singh v. Union of India [WP(C) No.1542/2019]; and
(vii) Justice Ajit Singh v. Union of India [WP(C) No.102/2024]
4. The second issue, that is involved in the following matters, is with regard to denial of full pension on the ground of break-in service for a period between the date on which they retired as District Judges and the date on which they assumed the charge as High Court Judges:
(ii) Justice M Vijayaraghavan v. Union of India [WP(C) No.993/2017];
(iii) Justice Alok Kumar Mukherjee v. Union of India [WP(C) No.911/2018]; and
(iv) Justice Surendra Kumar v. Union of India [WP(C) No.86/2019;
5. The third issue which arises in the case of Justice Ajit Singh v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 102/2024] is as to whether the petitioner who retired as a High Court Judge but entered into the State Judiciary after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into effect would be entitled to pension as per the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 19541 [Hereinafter “HCJ Act”] or not.
6. The fourth issue, that is involved in the following cases, is as to whether a Judge who has retired as an Additional Judge of the High Court would be entitled to full pension or not:
(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....
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 ....
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 ....
Family pension is included in the definition of pension under the Judges Act, entitling the spouse of a retired Chairperson to claim it.
(1) A unified judiciary necessarily entails that service conditions of Judges of one State are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other States – Judiciary must possess inherent power to compel ....
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.
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.
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
