Bombay High Court Grants Pension to Former Judge "The Criteria of Entitlement to Pension is Retirement, Mode of Retirement is Irrelevant"
Kiran Raj
The Bombay High Court has held that the term ‘retirement’ under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, includes resignation, thereby entitling a former judge to pensionary benefits. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre quashed the decision of the High Court administration that denied pension to the petitioner, a former judge of the court.
The petitioner, a former judge of the Bombay High Court, was originally appointed as a District Judge on October 26, 2007. On January 16, 2019, the Supreme Court collegium recommended her elevation to the Bombay High Court, following which she was appointed as an Additional Judge for a two-year term commencing February 13, 2019. Her tenure was subsequently extended by one year through a notification dated February 12, 2021, and was scheduled to expire on February 12, 2022. However, she tendered her resignation on February 11, 2022, which was formally notified by the Central Government on March 14, 2023.
On February 17, 2022, the petitioner applied for pensionary benefits, citing her tenure as an Additional Judge for nearly three years and as a District Judge for over eleven years. However, on November 2, 2022, she was informed by the High Court Registry that she was not entitled to pension, based on opinions received from the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Principal Accountant General of Maharashtra, the Legal Advisor of the Maharashtra State Government, and the Advocate General of Maharashtra.
Seeking information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner inquired whether any former judges who had resigned were receiving pension benefits. She was informed that five such former judges were being paid pensions. Subsequently, she approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the denial of her pension.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that judges hold a constitutional office rather than a government post, and therefore, pension eligibility should be determined based on constitutional and statutory provisions rather than general service rules. It was contended that the term ‘retirement’ in Sections 14 and 15 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, should not be construed narrowly to mean only superannuation. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that “the expression ‘retirement’ in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act is used broadly so as to enable all modes of retirement including superannuation and resignation.”
It was further argued that differentiating between additional and permanent judges for pension purposes based on the source of appointment would be inconsistent with the provisions of the 1954 Act. The petitioner’s counsel contended, “No discrimination can be made between an additional Judge and a permanent Judge of a High Court for payment of pension on the basis of source of appointment.”
On the other hand, counsel for the High Court administration submitted that resignation results in the forfeiture of pension claims. It was contended that “the expression ‘retirement’ used in Section 14 and 15 of the Act of 1954 does not include resignation.” The respondents argued that resignation signifies a voluntary decision to discontinue service, which is distinct from retirement.
The State Government adopted the opinion of the Advocate General, who relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal (2004), where a service rule expressly provided that resignation leads to forfeiture of past service. The respondents submitted that the same principle should apply in the present case.
The court examined the constitutional provisions governing the appointment and tenure of High Court judges, including Articles 217 and 221 of the Constitution of India. It then analyzed Sections 14 and 15 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, which govern pension entitlements.
The court observed, “The expression ‘retirement’ in Sections 14 and 15(1) of 1954 Act has been used in a broad sense and it includes the case of retirement on resignation as well.” It stated that resignation, like retirement, results in the conclusion of a service career and should not be treated differently for pension purposes.
The court considered dictionary definitions and judicial precedents to ascertain the meaning of ‘retirement’. Referring to Black’s Law Dictionary, it noted that retirement means “termination of one’s own employment or career, which may be voluntary or involuntary.” The court also cited judicial decisions, including D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983), where it was held that pension is a right linked to service and not merely a gratuitous benefit.
Addressing the argument that resignation forfeits pension entitlement, the court distinguished the present case from UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal. It stated, “In 1954 Act, there is no such provision [that resignation leads to forfeiture of past service]. It is noteworthy that the learned Advocate General has not taken into account the provisions of 1954 Act.”
The court also considered the fact that five former judges who had resigned were receiving pensions. It noted, “No explanation has been offered on behalf of the respondents for taking a different stand in the case of the petitioner alone.” The court referred to a Division Bench decision in Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande v. High Court of Judicature of Bombay, which concluded that a judge who demitted office as an Additional Judge was entitled to pension.
After examining the statutory provisions and submissions of the parties, the court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits. It quashed the High Court Registry’s communication dated November 2, 2022, stating, “The respondents are directed to fix and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from 14.02.2022 within a period of two months from today along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.”
The court stated that the mode of retirement—whether by resignation or superannuation—was irrelevant for pension entitlement under Sections 14 and 15 of the 1954 Act. It stated, “The criteria of entitlement to pension is retirement and mode of retirement for pension is irrelevant for the purpose of Section 14 and 15(1) of 1954 Act.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate with Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate, and Pralhad Paranjape, Ankit B. Rathod, Onkar Bajaj, Atharva S. Manohar, instructed by Anshu Agrawal.
For Respondents 1 to 3: Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Rahul Nerlekar.
For Respondents 5 and 6 (State of Maharashtra): Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader, with O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader, and G. R. Raghuwanshi, Assistant Government Pleader.
Case Title: Pushpa w/o Virendra Ganediwala v. High Court of Judicature of Bombay & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:11778-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 15018 of 2023
Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre
[Read/Download order]
