[ Court Doc ]   Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment addressing various contentious issues related to the pension, gratuity, and other terminal benefits payable to retired High Court Judges. The ruling emphasizes the principle of "One Rank One Pension" (OROP) for all High Court Judges, irrespective of their origin (District Judiciary or Bar) or the length of their service.

The batch of matters, adjudicated by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, consolidated several petitions concerning disparities in pension calculations and the denial of benefits to various categories of retired judges.

Key Issues Addressed by the Supreme Court:

The judgment meticulously examined and resolved several critical issues:

• Non-consideration of Service as District Judges for Full Pension: The Court clarified that the entire service period of a retiring High Court Judge, including their tenure as a District Judge, must be considered for calculating their full pension. The pension calculation should be based on the last pay drawn as a High Court Judge, not as a District Judge.
• Denial of Full Pension Due to Break-in-Service: The Court ruled that a break in service between retirement as a District Judge and assuming office as a High Court Judge cannot be a ground for denying full pension based on the High Court Judge's salary.
• Pension for Judges under the New Pension Scheme (NPS): The ruling addresses the entitlement to pension under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (HCJ Act), for High Court Judges who entered the State Judiciary after the NPS came into effect.
• Full Pension for Additional Judges: The judgment asserts that Judges who retired as Additional Judges of the High Court are entitled to full pension.
• Family Pension and Gratuity for Widows/Family Members of Additional Judges: The Court clarified the entitlement of widows/family members of Additional Judges to gratuity and family pension, irrespective of whether the minimum qualifying service under Section 17A of the HCJ Act was completed. It also mandated that a period of 10 years must be added to the service for calculating gratuity.
• Denial of Provident Fund: The ruling confirms that Provident Fund and other benefits, as payable under the HCJ Act, must be paid to retired High Court Judges, irrespective of their mode of entry, even if they were appointed after the NPS came into effect. This includes leave encashment and commutation of pensions.

Legal Foundations and Judicial Precedents:

The Supreme Court based its conclusions on Article 221 of the Constitution of India, which governs the salaries, allowances, and pensions of High Court Judges. It reiterated that Parliament determines these emoluments and benefits, and they cannot be varied to a judge's disadvantage after appointment. The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, was extensively referenced, particularly Sections 2, 13A, 14, 15, and 17A, which define a "Judge," "pension," salaries, and provisions for various pension categories, family pensions, and gratuities.

The judgment extensively relied on previous judicial precedents, including M.L. Jain and Another v. Union of India, P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and Others , and Justice Shailendra Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, solidifying the principle of non-discrimination among High Court Judges. The Court emphasized that once appointed, all High Court Judges form a "homogenous class of constitutional office holders" and any distinction based on their source of recruitment is unconstitutional.

Court's Directions:

The Supreme Court issued clear directives to the Union of India:

• Full pension of ?15,00,000 per annum to retired Chief Justices of High Courts.
• Full pension of ?13,50,000 per annum to retired Judges of High Courts (other than Chief Justices).
• This includes retired Additional Judges of the High Court.
• The Union of India must adhere to the principle of "One Rank One Pension" for all retired High Court Judges, regardless of their source of entry (District Judiciary or Bar) or the number of years served in either capacity.
• All allowances payable to a retired Judge, including leave encashment, commutation of pensions, and Provident Fund, must be paid in accordance with the HCJ Act.

This landmark judgment aims to resolve long-standing disparities in the pension and retirement benefits of High Court Judges, reinforcing the financial independence crucial for judicial autonomy.