The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme was not applicable to Judicial Officers appointed after 31st October 2005, and the State Government's action of applying the impugned Government Resolution to the Judicial Officers was in breach of the orders of the Apex Court.

A.S. Oka, J.

1. This Public Interest Litigation is preferred raising several issues regarding the Judiciary in the State of Maharashtra in general. A prayer is for setting up various additional Courts as set out in prayer clauses (a) to (j). In the first paragraph of order dated 12th February, 2016, a bench of this Court of which one of us (A.S.Oka, J.) is a party, passed the following order “Amongst various issues which are raised in this petition, at present we are dealing with two issues. The first issue is regarding the discontinuation of the Pension Scheme to the judicial officers which was applicable in terms of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission. Now a Contributory Pension Scheme is made applicable with effect from the year 2010 even to the judicial officers who will have to contribute 10% of their salary to the said pension scheme. The recommendations of the Shetty Commission were accepted by the Apex Court. Even the recommendations of the committee headed by Justice Padmanabhan were accepted by the Apex Court. Based on the said recommendations, a Government Resolution dated 5th January 2011 was issued by the State Government. Apart from the binding recommendations of the Shetty Commission and the Padmanabhan Commission, the question is whether the judicial officers can be treated on par with the officers of the State as far as pension is concerned. Under the present Recruitment Rules, even a fresh law graduate who is not having any experience of practice can join the Judicial Service at the age of 25 years as a Civil Judge, Junior Division. If such a fresh law graduate after rendering service for 35 years retires, he will not be entitled to the benefit of the Pension Scheme which was available as per the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and Pension Scheme can be made applicable to the judicial officers in the face of the recommendations which were accepted by the Apex Court. The State Government will have to treat the Judicial Officers differently from any other officers on its establishment. This aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Government Pleader on the last occasion. Today, he states that the issue is being considered by the State Government.”

2. On the basis of a prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, a permission was granted on 9th August, 2016 to amend the petition for the purposes of incorporating a challenge to the Government Resolution dated 31st October, 2005 which introduces “Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (for short “the New Scheme”) for the Government Servants who are recruited on or after 1st November, 2005 in the Government service. The challenge to this Government Resolution (for short “the impugned Government Resolution”) is confined to its applicability to the Judicial Officers in the State.

3. As far as the other issues involved in this Writ Petition are concerned, several steps have been taken during the pendency of the Petition for appointing additional Judges and for creating additional Courts. By an order dated 27th October, 2016, a Bench of this Court directed that the issue regarding pensionery benefits admissible to the Judicial Officers deserves to be disposed of finally. Accordingly, the State Government was permitted to file a reply. There are two affidavits on record of Shri Neeraj Pradeep Dhote, Legal Advisor-cum-Joint Secretary of the Law and Judiciary Department which are dated 16th June, 2016 and 19th July, 2016. There is also a reply filed on behalf of the High Court Registry which does not deal with the issue of pension to the Judicial Officers.

4. Before we come to the submissions made on the issue of challenge to the impugned Government Resolution, we must make a reference to the provisions relating to payment of pension to the Judicial Officers in the State before the impugned communication came into force. For that purpose, it will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case