“As guardians of the district judiciary, we request the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to collaborate with the amicus curiae to find a solution,” the Chief Justice stated.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court raised concerns on Thursday (8th Aug) about the insufficient pensions provided to district judges, urging the Centre to address these issues promptly.
READ ALSO: Delhi HC: Expansion of ‘Civil Judge Jurisdiction’ in Delhi District Court
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, leading a bench with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized the urgency of the matter.
“As guardians of the district judiciary, we request the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to collaborate with the amicus curiae to find a solution,”
the Chief Justice stated.
Highlighting the severity of the situation, the Chief Justice referenced the case of a cancer-stricken district judge and noted the numerous petitions filed by district judges regarding pension grievances. “District judges receive a mere Rs 15,000 as pension.
Typically, district judges are promoted to high courts around the ages of 56 and 57, retiring with a pension of Rs 30,000 per month,”
the bench observed.
They further noted the challenges faced by high court judges in securing arbitration matters post-retirement.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, requested additional time to address the pension-related concerns of district court judges.
Acknowledging their request, the bench postponed the hearing to August 27, based on a plea from the All India Judges Association seeking the implementation of welfare measures for retired judges.
Lawyer K. Parmeswar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, informed the bench that several states have complied with the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) recommendations regarding the payment of pension arrears and other retirement benefits to judicial officers.
States have begun filing compliance affidavits, he added.
READ ALSO: District Judge’s Dowry Demand & Trying to Influence Junior Judge | HC Upholds Dismissal
Previously, on July 11, the Supreme Court had summoned the chief and finance secretaries of various states and Union Territories for failing to comply with the SNJPC recommendations.
Expressing dissatisfaction, the bench had remarked, “We know how to enforce compliance. If we mandate the chief secretary’s presence for non-compliance, an affidavit will be filed promptly. While we are not incarcerating them, their presence will ensure compliance.”
In a January 10 verdict, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for uniform service conditions for judicial officers nationwide. The court directed the establishment of a two-judge committee in each high court to oversee the implementation of orders concerning pay, pensions, and other retirement benefits for judicial officers as per SNJPC guidelines.
The court expressed grave concern that, while officers in other services have benefited from revised service conditions since January 1, 2016, judicial officers are still awaiting a final decision eight years later. This delay affects retired judges and the families of deceased judges who rely on family pensions.
The SNJPC recommendations encompass pay structures, pensions, family pensions, and allowances, and advocate for a permanent mechanism to determine service conditions for the district judiciary.
