Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) delivered a landmark judgment declaring that all retired High Court judges are entitled to equal and full pension, regardless of their date of appointment and the source of entry.

The Court also held that a permanent judge and an additional judge of the High Court stand on the same footing as regards post-retiral benefits.

Referring to various precedents, the Court observed that "one rank one pension must be the norm in respect of a constitutional office."

After analyzing various precedents and the provisions of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran summarised the principles as follows :

(i) A retiring Judge's entire service as a Judge has to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating his pension. For that purpose, the last pay drawn by him has to be the pay drawn by him as a Judge of the High Court and not the pay that would have been drawn by him as a District Judge, had he not been appointed a High Court Judge. Refere : M.L. Jain and Another v. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 355.

(ii) The ceiling of any amount in clause (b) of Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act is not sustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it creates discrimination. In any case, the said ceiling as provided under clause (b) of Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act was effaced with effect from 1st January 1996 as directed by this Court in the case of M.L. Jain v. Union of India (II) (1991) 1 SCC 644. As such, the pension of retired Judges has to be calculated on the basis of ceiling as provided in proviso to Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act [M.L. Jain (II) (supra)];

(iii) There cannot be any discrimination with regard to the fixation of the pension of a High Court Judge who holds a constitutional office. Irrespective of the source from where the Judges are drawn, they must be paid the same pension just as they have been paid the same salaries, allowances and perks as serving Judges [P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and Others (2014) 12 SCC 1];

(iv) The services of a Judicial Officer who becomes a High Court Judge from the judicial services so also the experience of a Member of the Bar who becomes a High Court Judge from the Bar is required to be taken into consideration [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra) and Jagdish Chandra Gupta v Union of India 2024 INSC 862];

(v) Any classification on the basis of the High Court Judges appointed from the Bar as against the High Court Judges appointed from the services is unreasonable and without any legally acceptable nexus with the object sought to be achieved [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra)];

(vi) One rank one pension has to be the norm in respect of a constitutional office [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra)];

(vii) No discrimination can be made in the matter of payment of family pension [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra)];

(viii) That break-in service for a period between the date of retirement as a District Judge and the date of assuming the office as a High Court Judge cannot be a ground for denial of pension on the basis of salary drawn as a High Court Judge. The pension of even such Judges has to be on the basis of the salary drawn as High Court Judges [Union of India v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) ; and

(ix) That a person who retires as a High Court Judge even if he was appointed in the State Judiciary after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into effect would still be entitled to the benefit of GPF under the HCJ Act [Justice Shailendra Singh v Union of India ].

Case: IN RE REFIXATION OF PENSION CONSIDERING SERVICE PERIOD IN DISTRICT JUDICIARY AND HIGH COURT SMW(C) No. 4/2024, and connected cases.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment