Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, three Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued a comprehensive set of directions concerning the refixation of pension for retired Judges of High Courts. The Court categorically held that pension benefits must be determined uniformly and not based on the source of judicial appointment. The Court directed that services rendered in the District Judiciary must be considered while calculating pension and held that any discrimination arising out of break-in-service, New Pension Scheme (NPS) applicability, or the designation as Additional Judges is impermissible under the constitutional scheme. The Court further directed the Union of India to recompute pensions wherever inconsistencies exist and clarified entitlement of family members to post-retiral benefits.

The proceedings were initiated in a suo motu writ petition tagged with multiple writ petitions involving Judges who retired from various High Courts. The primary grievance across these petitions concerned the denial of full pension on various grounds including the exclusion of service rendered in the District Judiciary, break-in-service, applicability of NPS, and denial of benefits to Additional Judges or their families.

Also Read: Supreme Court Declines Bail In ₹21,000 Crore Heroin Smuggling Case | Finds Prima Facie Evidence Of Conspiracy | Says It Is Premature To Link Accused To Terror Financing

The first issue pertained to the denial of full pension to retired High Court Judges for non-inclusion of their prior service in the District Judiciary. This issue was raised in cases including SMW(C) No.4/2024 and several other writ petitions filed between 2017 and 2024. Petitioners contended that their long tenure as District Judges was not considered in pension calculation, despite eventual elevation to the High Court. This exclusion led to significantly reduced pensions despite decades of judicial service.

The second issue involved Judges who faced a break-in-service between their retirement from the District Judiciary and appointment as High Court Judges. The petitioners argued that this break, often caused by delays in appointment, should not prejudice their entitlement to full pension, particularly when the delay was administrative.

A third issue concerned the applicability of NPS to High Court Judges who entered the judiciary after the scheme's introduction. One petitioner, Justice Ajit Singh, contended that although he joined the District Judiciary post-NPS, his elevation to the High Court and retirement entitled him to benefits under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (HCJ Act), not NPS.

The fourth issue focused on whether Additional Judges were entitled to full pension. The petitions raised the point that even if a Judge retired as an Additional Judge without becoming a permanent Judge, their service was nonetheless constitutional and should not be discounted for pension purposes.

The fifth issue dealt with the entitlement of family pension and gratuity to the families of deceased Additional Judges. The widow of an Additional Judge, Elavarasi Veeraraghavan, was denied these benefits on the grounds that her husband did not complete the qualifying service under Section 17A of the HCJ Act.

The sixth issue concerned the denial of Provident Fund benefits under Section 20 of the HCJ Act to Judges who entered service post-NPS. Petitioners in these cases argued that their appointment to the High Court entitled them to General Provident Fund (GPF) benefits notwithstanding their prior service under NPS.

Several statutory provisions were examined by the Court. Article 221 of the Constitution was considered, which governs the salaries and pensions of High Court Judges. The HCJ Act, including Sections 2, 13A, 14, 15, 17A, and the First Schedule (Parts I and III), was analyzed in detail. Notably, Section 14A and the corresponding amendments introduced to extend 10 years of qualifying service to Judges elevated from the Bar were discussed.

The Court also reviewed a long line of precedents, including:

• L. Jain (I) and M.L. Jain (II): which confirmed that the entire judicial service must be considered for pension purposes.

• Kuldip Singh v. Union of India: addressing parity in pension for Supreme Court Judges appointed from the Bar.

• Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India: which extended similar parity to High Court Judges.

• Justice Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain): where pension was denied due to a break in service, later held unconstitutional.

• Jagdish Chandra Gupta: where a Judge from service was given benefit of Bar experience for pension fixation.

• Justice Shailendra Singh: which discussed the entitlement to Provident Fund for Judges appointed after the introduction of NPS.

The Supreme Court, through its judgment authored by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, extensively analysed the legal and constitutional framework.

The Court observed in M.L. Jain (I) that "the retiring Judge's entire service as a Judge has to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating his pension and for that purpose, the last pay drawn by him has to be the pay drawn by him as a Judge of the High Court."

In P. Ramakrishnam Raju, the Court recorded that "irrespective of the source from where the Judges are drawn, they must be paid the same pension just as they have been paid same salaries and allowances and perks as serving Judges."

The Bench found that "one rank one pension must be the norm in respect of a constitutional office," noting that arbitrary classification between Judges appointed from the Bar and service violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

In Raj Rani Jain's case, the Court stated that "to accept the position [of the Union] would be contrary to established precedent and would result in a clear discrimination between a member of the Bar who becomes a Judge of the High Court and a member of the District Judiciary."

The Court further recorded that "any interpretation [which] would result in a plain discrimination between the Judges of the High Court based on the source from which they have been drawn" was constitutionally impermissible.

Referring to Justice Shailendra Singh’s case, the Court observed: "All Judges of the High Court, irrespective of the source from which they are drawn, are entrusted with the same constitutional function… Once appointed as Judges of the High Court, their birthmarks stand obliterated."

It was also observed that "judicial independence is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and there is an intrinsic relationship between financial independence of Judges and judicial independence."

In the matter of Provident Fund entitlement, the Court recorded that *"the importance which was attached to the payment of pension is clear from the fact that pensionary payments were charged on the Consolidated Fund of India under Article 112(d)(3)."

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of FIR Under PC-PNDT Act | Holds Cognizance Lies Only On Complaint But Police Investigation Not Barred

The Court directed that all pension calculations must consider the entire judicial service, including that rendered in the District Judiciary, for High Court Judges. The following directives were issued:

• The Union of India shall pay the full pension of Rs. 15,00,000 per annum to a retired Chief Justice of the High Court.

• The Union of India shall 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.

• A retired Judge of the High Court shall include Judges who retired as Additional Judges.

• The Union of India shall follow the principle of One Rank One Pension for all retired Judges of the High Courts, regardless of whether they entered service through the District Judiciary or the Bar, and irrespective of their tenure in either capacity.

• For retired Judges who served in the District Judiciary and had a break-in-service before High Court appointment, full pension shall be paid regardless of such break.

• Judges who entered the District Judiciary after the NPS came into effect and were later elevated to the High Court shall also be entitled to full pension. State Governments must refund their NPS contributions along with dividends accrued, while retaining their own contributions and dividends.

• Family pension shall be paid to the widow or family members of a deceased High Court Judge, whether the Judge was permanent or additional.

• Gratuity shall be paid to the widow or family members of a Judge who dies in harness by adding 10 years to their service, regardless of whether the minimum qualifying service under Section 17A(3)(i) of the HCJ Act was met.

• All allowances, including Leave Encashment under Section 4A, Commutation of Pension under Section 19, and Provident Fund under Section 20 of the HCJ Act, shall be paid in accordance with the Act.

The Court instructed that statutory rules and administrative orders be revised in conformity with these directives.

The Court also recorded its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel, ably assisted by Ms. Kanti, Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, as Amicus Curiae. The Bench also expressed gratitude to Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India, for presenting the case with objectivity and in accordance with the traditions of his office.

Case Title: In Re: Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 726

Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 4 of 2024 and connected cases

Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice K. Vinod Chandran

[Read/Download order]