Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra has raised an issue that since his promotion to the High Court in November 2023, he has not been assigned a General Provident Fund (GPF) account, resulting in the non-receipt of his salary.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of the Patna High Court has approached the Supreme Court, highlighting a significant issue regarding his salary. Since his elevation to the High Court in November 2023, Justice Mishra claims he has not received his salary due to the absence of a General Provident Fund (GPF) account.
The matter caught the attention of a three-judge bench at the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The bench issued a notice to both the Union of India and the State of Bihar, seeking a response. Additionally, the Registrar General of the Patna High Court was also asked to respond.
Advocate Prem Prakash, representing Justice Mishra, sought interim relief for his client. However, the Supreme Court bench did not issue an interim order but scheduled the matter for consideration on January 29, 2024. The order stated,
“Issue notice. Liberty to serve the Central Agency dasti, in addition. Tag with Writ Petition (C) No 232 of 2023. List the Petition with connected matter(s) on 29 January 2024.”
Justice Mishra’s plea revolves around the delay in the allocation of a GPF account, despite having completed all necessary documentation following his elevation from the higher judicial services. He argued that this delay has not only deprived him of his salary since his elevation but also caused significant mental and financial instability.
In his petition, Justice Mishra seeks a declaration from the Supreme Court affirming his entitlement to a GPF account, as per Section 20 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. This section stipulates,
“Every Judge shall be entitled to subscribe to the General Provident Fund (Central Services): Provided that a Judge who has held any other pensionable civil post under the Union or a State shall continue to subscribe to the Provident Fund to which he was subscribing before his appointment as a Judge.”
This case underscores the challenges faced by judicial officers in India and raises questions about the administrative processes affecting their welfare and financial security. The outcome of this petition is eagerly awaited, as it could have implications for the treatment of judges’ entitlements and benefits.
[Read Order]
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
