The Supreme Court strongly said that any discrimination in pension and retiral benefits between retired judges is not acceptable and would be a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
NEW DELHI: 19th May: The Supreme Court of India has clearly said that all retired High Court judges – whether they were permanent judges or additional judges – must receive equal pension and other retirement benefits. This ruling aims to ensure that there is no unfair treatment among retired judges when it comes to pensions and post-retirement benefits.
The decision was delivered by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih.
The Supreme Court strongly said that any discrimination in pension and retiral benefits between retired judges is not acceptable and would be a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
“We hold that any discrimination among judges for terminal benefits after retirement will be violative of Article 14.”
This means the government cannot treat retired judges differently just because of how they were appointed or promoted to the High Court.
“Thus, we hold all High Court judges, irrespective of when they entered (are) entitled to full pension.”
“We also hold High Court judges who retired as additional judges will also get full pension and any distinction between judges and additional judges will be doing to violence…”
The Court also mentioned that there should be no discrimination based on the way judges entered the judiciary. Whether a judge came from the Bar (as a lawyer) or was promoted from the district judiciary, they must be treated equally in terms of retiral benefits.
“No such discrimination is permissible based on how the High Court judge entered/ was promoted in judicial service either.”
The judgment clarified that the family members of retired additional judges are also entitled to family pension and widow benefits, just like the families of permanent judges.
“Family pension and widow benefits are payable to the families of retired additional High Court judges as well, just as they are for families of retired permanent High Court judges.”
Supreme Court’s Clear Directions
The Court has given the following specific directions to the Union government:
- The Union government must pay Rs. 15 lakhs per year as full pension to retired Chief Justices of High Courts.
- The Union government must pay Rs. 13.6 lakhs per year as full pension to retired High Court judges, including those who were additional judges.
- All High Court judges – whether they were elevated from the Bar or promoted from the district judiciary – must get full pension.
- Family pension and widow benefits must be paid to the families of retired additional High Court judges as well.
The Court was assisted in this case by Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, who appeared as an Amicus Curiae (a neutral legal expert who helps the court).
Earlier, A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and AG Masih is hearing a writ petition filed by the All India Judges Association, which questions whether judges should be governed by the old pension scheme (OPS) or the 2003 national pension scheme (NPS), under which members of the district judiciary do not receive a fixed pension. The Court is considering the possibility of implementing a unified pension scheme for the judiciary nationwide.
Attorney General R Venkataramani stated, “Comparing the judiciary to legislators or other branches of government is ‘misconceived’.”
He explained that while financial stability for judges is crucial, not every issue related to service conditions directly impacts judicial independence.
“Supersession of judges might tinker with judicial independence, but linking security of service conditions to it is difficult to comprehend,” he argued.
He added that ensuring uniform salaries and pensions would require a “larger constitutional rearrangement,” involving multiple levels of government at both the Centre and states.
The Attorney General also highlighted the government’s challenge of balancing financial demands across sectors.
“If one section is granted salaries or pensions at an enhanced rate, the government will need to do the balancing exercise,” he said.
Referring to the court’s earlier remarks about freebies, Venkataramani noted,
“Governments seem to have money to provide ‘freebies’ to citizens who do not work, but a financial crunch is cited when paying salaries and pensions of judges.”
However, the Supreme Court bench was not convinced. The judges questioned why the judiciary should not be considered a “unified” institution with consistent service conditions. They stressed that disparities in salaries, pensions, and allowances among judicial officers hurt the judiciary’s ability to attract and retain competent talent.
Case Name: IN RE REFIXATION OF PENSION CONSIDERING SERVICE PERIOD IN DISTRICT JUDICIARY AND HIGH COURT SMW(C) No. 4/2024, and connected cases.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
