Retired Justice Ajit Singh from the Allahabad High Court challenges the pension norms for judges elevated from the district judiciary, stating that the current pension of ₹15,005 does not reflect the dignity due to a retired High Court judge. He argues for equal treatment in pension calculation and highlights broader issues of financial security and respect for retired judges.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
A former judge of the Allahabad High Court has approached the Supreme Court challenging the existing pension norms for judges elevated from the district judiciary. (Retd) Justice Ajit Singh, who retired on March 29, 2023, after being appointed to the High Court from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judiciary in 2018, currently receives a monthly pension of ₹15,005. This amount, he contends, does not reflect the dignity and status due to a retired High Court judge.
Also read- Rising Bail Plea Cases In Supreme Court Signal Judicial Challenges: Justice Gavai (lawchakra.in)
The crux of Justice Singh’s plea lies in the challenge against a Union Law Ministry letter that differentiates between High Court judges elevated from the district judiciary and those elevated from the bar in terms of pension eligibility, regardless of the length of service. He argues that this distinction unfairly disregards the tenure served in the district judiciary when calculating pensions for service quota High Court judges. In contrast, judges appointed from the bar benefit from a rule that counts ten years of bar experience as bench experience for pension purposes.
“The tenure at the district judiciary is arbitrarily not counted towards determining the pension of service quota High Court judges while in the case of judges appointed from the bar, a period of ten years at the bar is counted as experience at the bench for determining pension,”
Justice Singh’s plea states, highlighting the discrepancy in the treatment of judges based on their career paths prior to elevation.
Furthermore, the plea emphasizes that the current pension rate is “not adequate for survival befitting the status of the petitioner,” pointing to a broader issue of financial security and respect for retired judges who have served the judiciary.
The plea also criticizes the arbitrary nature of the existing pension rules:
“It is arbitrary to take stand that a period of ten years will be added in case of judges who are elevated from the Bar for computation of pension and other retiral benefits but the period of service as rendered by High Court Judges during judicial service before elevation will not be added to the length of service for computation of pension and other retiral benefits.”
In light of these arguments, Justice Singh has requested the Supreme Court to quash the Law Ministry’s letter and to ensure that the pension for retired High Court judges appointed from the district judiciary is made equivalent to that of judges appointed from the bar. This would involve acknowledging the tenure of service as a judge in the district judiciary when calculating pension benefits.
This case underscores a significant issue within the judicial appointment and retirement system, raising questions about equality, respect, and financial security for judges post-retirement. The outcome of this plea could set a precedent affecting the pension rights of numerous judges across the country, making this a landmark case with far-reaching implications.
