Resignation Equates Retirement: Bombay High Court Grants Pension to Former Judge.


13 March 2025 Unpaid salary/bonus/gratuity >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

In a significant ruling of Pushpa v/s High Court of Judicature of Bombay & Others, the Bombay High Court has held that the term "retirement," as used in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954, encompasses resignation, thereby granting pensionary benefits to a former Additional Judge who had resigned from her post. This decision overturns a prior communication from the High Court Registry denying the petitioner her pension, setting a precedent that could impact future cases.

The petitioner, a former Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court, had served for nearly three years before tendering her resignation. Subsequently, she applied for pensionary benefits, citing her service as both an Additional Judge and a District Judge. However, the High Court Registry, relying on opinions from various legal authorities, rejected her claim, asserting that resignation did not qualify as "retirement" under the 1954 Act.


 

 

The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that a High Court Judge holds a constitutional office, not a government post, and therefore, general service jurisprudence should not apply. She contended that the term "retirement" in the 1954 Act should be interpreted broadly to include all modes of leaving office, including resignation.

The High Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of interpreting the term "retirement" within the context of the 1954 Act. The Court noted that the Act itself does not define "retirement," necessitating a recourse to common parlance and legal dictionaries. Upon examination, the Court found that "retirement" is a word of wide import, encompassing the conclusion of a career, and that "resign" is listed as a synonym for "retire."

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the 1954 Act explicitly includes retirement due to ill-health as a basis for pension eligibility, indicating that "retirement" is not limited to superannuation. The Court also highlighted that five former Judges of the same High Court, who had resigned, were receiving pensions, demonstrating an inconsistent application of the law.

The Court dismissed the opinions relied upon by the respondents, particularly the Advocate General's opinion, which was based on a Supreme Court ruling involving a specific service rule that forfeited benefits upon resignation—a provision absent in the 1954 Act.

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court concluded that the term "retirement" in the 1954 Act should be interpreted broadly to include resignation. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner her pensionary benefits, with interest, from the date of her resignation.

This ruling clarifies the interpretation of "retirement" under the 1954 Act and ensures that judges who resign are not unfairly denied their pensionary entitlements. It underscores the constitutional nature of a High Court Judge's office and the need for a liberal interpretation of pension provisions.