Supreme Court upholds ‘One Rank One Pension’ for all retired High Court Judges; Orders equal and full pension

Apoorva

16 hours ago

Supreme Court: In a matter concerning the pension payable to retired Judges of the High Courts, including the payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits, a Three- Judge Bench of BR Gavai*, CJI., Augustine George Masih, and K.Vinod Chandran, JJ. issued the following directions:

The Union of India was directed to pay the full pension of Rs. 15,00,000/- per annum to a retired Chief Justice of the High Court.
The Union of India was directed to pay the full pension of Rs. 13,50,000/- per annum to a retired Judge of the High Court, other than a retired Chief Justice of the High Court.
A retired Judge of the High Court was deemed to include retired Judges who had served as Additional Judges of the High Court.
The Union of India was instructed to follow the principle of One Rank One Pension for all retired High Court Judges, regardless of their entry source (whether from the District Judiciary or the Bar) and irrespective of the number of years served either as a District Judge or a High Court Judge. All retired Judges were to be paid full pension as stipulated.
In the case of a retired High Court Judge who had previously served in the District Judiciary, the Union of India was directed to pay full pension, irrespective of any break in service between the date of retirement from the District Judiciary and the date of assumption of charge as a High Court Judge.
For retired High Court Judges who had served in the District Judiciary and entered it after the introduction of the Contributory Pension Scheme or New Pension Scheme, the Union of India was directed to pay full pension. The States were directed to refund the entire amount contributed under NPS to the retired Judges, along with any accrued dividends. However, the contributions made by the State Governments were to be retained by the respective States, including any accrued dividends.
The Union of India was directed to pay family pension to the widow or family members of a High Court Judge who died in harness, regardless of whether the Judge was a Permanent Judge or an Additional Judge of the High Court.
The Union of India was directed to pay gratuity to the widow or family members of a High Court Judge who died in harness by adding 10 years to the period of service undergone by the Judge, regardless of whether the minimum qualifying service required under Section 17A of the HCJ Act had been completed.
The Union of India was directed to pay all allowances due to a retired High Court Judge as per the provisions of the HCJ Act. This included Leave Encashment under Section 4A of the HCJ Act, Commutation of Pensions under Section 19, Provident Fund under Section 20 of the HCJ Act, and other applicable allowances.

Issues

The first issue pertained to the non-grant of full pension to the petitioners who have retired as High Court Judges without taking into consideration the services rendered by them as District Judges.
The second issue was with regard to denial of full pension on the ground of break-in service for a period between the date on which they retired as District Judges and the date on which they assumed the charge as High Court Judges.
Whether the retired High Court Judge who entered the State Judiciary after the New Pension Scheme (‘NPS’) came into effect would be entitled to pension as per the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (‘HCJ Act’) or not.
Whether a Judge who has retired as an Additional Judge of the High Court would be entitled to full pension or not.
Whether the widow of an Additional Judge of the High Court, would be entitled to gratuity and family pension or not.
The sixth issue concerned the denial of provident fund as payable under Section 20 of the HCJ Act on the ground that they were appointed after NPS came into effect.

Analysis and Decision

The Court referred to Article 221 of the Constitution of India and the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (HCJ Act) to underline the statutory requirements governing the pensions, allowances, and other benefits of retired High Court Judges.

Further, after taking note of M.L. Jain v. Union of India (M L Jain (I)], (1985) 2 SCC 355; M.L. Jain v. Union of India (M L Jain (II), (1991) 1 SCC 644; P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 1; Shailendra Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3207, Union of India v. Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 321, the Court observed the following:

Entire Service to be Reckoned for Pension Calculation: A retiring Judge’s entire service as a Judge must be considered when calculating their pension. For this purpose, the last pay drawn by the Judge should be the pay drawn as a High Court Judge, not the pay that would have been drawn had they remained a District Judge.
Unconstitutional Ceiling on Pension: The ceiling mentioned 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, as it creates discrimination. The ceiling was effectively removed starting from 1st January 1996 as per this Court’s ruling in M.L. Jain (II). Therefore, pensions for retired Judges must be calculated based on the ceiling provided in the proviso to Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act.
No Discrimination in Pension Fixation: There should be no discrimination regarding the fixation of the pension of a High Court Judge, as they hold a constitutional office. Regardless of whether a Judge comes from the District Judiciary or the Bar, they must be paid the same pension, just as they receive the same salary, allowances, and perks while serving.
Consideration of Service and Experience: The services of a Judicial Officer who becomes a High Court Judge from the judicial services, as well as the experience of a Member of the Bar who becomes a High Court Judge, must be taken into account.
Unreasonable Classification Between Judges: Any classification between High Court Judges appointed from the Bar and those appointed from the judicial services is unreasonable and lacks any legally acceptable connection to the objective sought to be achieved.
One Rank One Pension for Constitutional Offices: One Rank One Pension should be the standard for Judges holding a constitutional office.
No Discrimination in Family Pension: There should be no discrimination when paying family pension to the family members of retired Judges.
Break in Service Cannot Deny Pension: A break in service between the retirement as a District Judge and assuming office as a High Court Judge cannot be grounds for denying pension based on the salary drawn as a High Court Judge. The pension of such Judges must be based on the salary they received as High Court Judges.
Entitlement to GPF for Judges Under NPS: A person who retires as a High Court Judge, even if they were appointed in the State Judiciary after the introduction of the NPS, is still entitled to the benefit of the General Provident Fund (‘GPF’) under the HCJ Act.

Non-Consideration of Services Rendered as District Judges for Full Pension

The Court emphasised that there should be no discrimination in the payment of pension to retired Judges, highlighting the principle of one rank one pension for the constitutional office of a High Court Judge. It was asserted that Judges, regardless of their source of entry, should receive equal terminal benefits after retirement, similar to the salary they received while serving. Discrimination based on the source of entry as a High Court Judge was rejected.

The Court noted that the ceiling of Rs. 15,00,000 per annum for a Chief Justice and Rs. 13,50,000 per annum for other Judges under the HCJ Act should apply uniformly, including to those who entered the High Court from the District Judiciary. Any restriction reducing pension below these amounts was deemed discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Further, the Court observed that Section 13A of the HCJ Act, which provides a salary of Rs. 2,25,000 per month to High Court Judges (except the Chief Justice), correlates to an annual pension of Rs. 13,50,000. The Court rejected any interpretation that would link pension to tenure, as this could lead to absurd situations. Therefore, all retired Judges, including those from the District Judiciary, were entitled to a basic pension of Rs. 13,50,000 per annum, ensuring parity and fairness in pension payments.

Denial of Full Pension Owing to Break-in-Service

The Court observed that it may not be necessary to readdress the issue, as it had already been considered in the case of Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (supra). In that case, a three-judge Bench held that the break-in service of a retired High Court Judge could not be used as grounds to deny full pension. The Court had directed that the pension be calculated based on the basic pension of Rs. 13,50,000 per annum.

Denial of Full Pension to Retired High Court Judges Who Entered the State Judiciary After NPS Came into Effect

The Court emphasised that High Court Judges, irrespective of their source of entry, are entitled to the same salary, perquisites, and benefits during their tenure. It observed that any discrimination between Judges based on their source of entry would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as all High Court Judges should receive equal treatment while in service. Therefore, discriminating against them after retirement with regard to terminal benefits would also be unconstitutional.

The Court reaffirmed the one rank one pension principle, which mandates uniform pension for all retired Judges of the High Courts. It ruled that once a Judge assumes office as a High Court Judge, they enter into a constitutional class and should not face differential treatment based on the date of their appointment.

Regarding the NPS, the Court directed that States refund the amounts contributed by the Judges to the NPS, along with any accrued dividends. However, the contributions made by the State, along with any dividends, should remain with the respective States.

Denial of Full Pension to Judges Who Retired as Additional Judges

The Court addressed whether Judges who retired as Additional Judges would be entitled to full pension. It referred to the definition of a “Judge” in the HCJ Act, which includes not only the Chief Justice and acting Chief Justice but also Additional Judges and acting Judges. This broad definition, the Court noted, precludes any artificial distinction between Permanent and Additional Judges in terms of pension entitlement.

The Court emphasised that High Court Judges are treated uniformly in terms of pay, allowances, and other service conditions, regardless of whether they were appointed from the District Judiciary or the Bar. The status of a Judge, Permanent or Additional, is determined by the availability of vacancies, not by any inherent difference in their roles.

Therefore, the Court ruled that Judges who retired as Additional Judges are entitled to the same basic pension of Rs. 13,50,000 per annum, ensuring parity with Permanent Judges.

Denial of Family Pension and Gratuity to Widows/Family Members of Additional Judges of High Court

The Court addressed the denial of family pension and gratuity to the widow or family members of Additional Judges. It reiterated that the definition of “Judge” under the HCJ Act includes Chief Justice, acting Chief Justice, Additional Judges, and acting Judges. Therefore, denying family pension solely because a Judge died while serving as an Additional Judge was deemed arbitrary. The Court held that the widow or family members of an Additional Judge are entitled to family pension in accordance with Section 17A of the HCJ Act.

Regarding the denial of gratuity, the Court found this unsustainable. It noted that the definition of pension under the HCJ Act includes not just pension but also gratuity and other retirement benefits. The Court emphasised a harmonious construction of Section 14A and Section 17A(3) of the HCJ Act, which led to the conclusion that a period of 10 years should be added to the service of a Judge for the purpose of calculating gratuity. Thus, the gratuity payable upon death or retirement of a Judge would be calculated by adding 10 years to the service period, ensuring fair treatment for widows and family members.

Denial of Provident Fund as Payable Under the HCJ Act

The Court addressed the issue of denial of Provident Fund and other retirement benefits for High Court Judges. It clarified that all allowances payable to a retired Judge, regardless of their mode of entry into the High Court, should be provided in accordance with the provisions of the HCJ Act. This includes leave encashment under Section 4A, commutation of pensions under Section 19, and Provident Fund under Section 20 of the HCJ Act.

While the Court referred to a previous judgment in the case of Justice Shailendra Singh (supra), it further emphasised the need for clarity and to avoid ambiguity in future cases. The Court reaffirmed that retired Chief Justices of High Courts are entitled to a full pension of Rs. 15,00,000 per annum, and retired High Court Judges are entitled to a full pension of Rs. 13,50,000 per annum.

[Refixation of pension considering service period in District Judiciary and High Court, In re, Suo motu Writ Petition (c) No. 4 of 2024, decided on 19-05-2025]

*Judgment Authored by: Chief Justice BR Gavai