Supreme Court settles pension benefits for High Court Judges: In Re: Refixation of Pension (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2025

Judges: B.R. Gavai, CJI, Augustine George Masih, J, K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Are all High Court judges entitled to the same pension benefits regardless of their previous roles? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent suo motu writ petition, aiming to resolve inconsistencies in pension calculations for retired High Court judges. This judgment ensures that all judges receive equitable pension benefits, irrespective of whether they were directly appointed, elevated from district courts, or joined after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme (NPS). The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, delivered a unanimous decision to iron out the creases in the existing pension framework.

Case Background

The Supreme Court initiated a suo motu writ petition to address various issues concerning the pension benefits of retired High Court Judges. These issues included disparities in pension calculations, denial of full pension due to breaks in service, and the applicability of the New Pension Scheme (NPS). Several writ petitions were consolidated to provide a comprehensive resolution to these long-standing grievances.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case originated from multiple writ petitions filed by retired High Court Judges, primarily concerning inconsistencies in pension calculations. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana previously ruled in favor of blending the service period of a judge from the district judiciary with their tenure as a High Court judge for pension computation. The Union of India appealed this decision, leading to further scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment references several key legal provisions:

• ✓ Article 221 of the Constitution of India:
  Deals with the salaries, allowances, leave of absence, and pension rights of High Court Judges, as determined by Parliament.
  “221. Salaries etc. , of Judges .—(1) There shall be paid to the Judges of each High Court such salaries as may be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule.”
• ✓ High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (HCJ Act):
  An Act to regulate the salaries and conditions of service of Judges of High Courts.
• ✓ Section 2(1)(g): Defines “Judge” to include the Chief Justice, acting Chief Justice, additional Judge, and acting Judge of the High Court.
  “(g) “Judge” means a Judge of a High Court and includes the Chief Justice an acting Chief Justice, an additional Judge and an acting Judge of the High Court;”
• ✓ Section 2(1)(gg): Defines “pension” to include any gratuity or other sum payable by way of death or retirement benefits.
  “(gg) “pension” means a pension of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of a Judge, and includes any gratuity or other sum or sums so payable by way of death or retirement benefits;”
• ✓ Section 13A: Specifies the monthly salaries for the Chief Justice (Rs. 2,50,000) and other High Court Judges (Rs. 2,25,000).
  “13A. Salaries of the Judges .—(1) There shall be paid to the Chief Justice of a High Court, by way of salary, two lakh fifty thousand rupees per mensem. (2) There shall be paid to a Judge of a High Court, by way of salary, two lakh twenty -five thousand rupees per mensem]. ”
• ✓ Section 14: States that every Judge shall, on retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with Part I of the First Schedule, subject to certain conditions.
  “14. Pension payable to Judges .—Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Judge shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part I of the First Schedule”
• ✓ Section 15: Provides special pension provisions for Judges who were previously in pensionable posts under the Union or a State.
  “15. Special provision for pension in respect of Judges who are members of service .— (1) Every Judge —(b) who has held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State, shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of the First Schedule”
• ✓ Section 17A: Deals with family pensions and gratuities payable to the family of a Judge who dies in service or after retirement.
  “17A. Family pensions and gratuities .— (1) Where a Judge who, being in service on or after the commencement of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1986, dies, whether before or after retirement in circumstances to which Section 17 does not apply, family pension calculated at the rate of fifty per cent of his salary on the date of his death shall be payable to the person or persons entitled thereto”
• ✓ First Schedule, Part I: Specifies the pension amounts for Judges who have not held other pensionable posts or have elected to receive pension under this part.
  “THE FIRST SCHEDULE (See Sections 14 and 15) Pensions of Judges PART I 1. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who has not held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State or a Judge who having held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State has elected to receive the pension payable under this Part.”
• ✓ First Schedule, Part III: Specifies the pension amounts for Judges who have held other pensionable posts under the Union or a State and have not elected to receive pension under Part I.
  “THE FIRST SCHEDULE (See Sections 14 and 15) Pensions of Judges PART III 1. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who has held any pensionable post under the Union or a State (but is not a member of the Indian Civil Service) and who has not elected to receive the pension payable under Part I.”

These provisions ensure that the judiciary’s financial independence is maintained, which is crucial for its overall independence as enshrined in the Constitution.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners:

• ✓ High Court Judges, irrespective of their source of appointment (direct from the Bar or elevated from the District Judiciary), perform the same duties and hold the same responsibilities. Therefore, they should be entitled to the same pensionary benefits.
• ✓ The denial of full pension based on a break in service between the District Judiciary and the High Court is discriminatory and unjust, as it penalizes judges for procedural delays beyond their control.
• ✓ Judges who joined the State Judiciary after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) should not be excluded from receiving pension under the HCJ Act, as this creates an artificial distinction within the same constitutional office.

Arguments on behalf of the Union of India:

• ✓ Pension calculations should be based on the last salary drawn in the respective service, which means that if a judge retires as a District Judge before being appointed to the High Court, their pension should be calculated based on their District Judge salary.
• ✓ A break in service between the District Judiciary and the High Court should be considered a valid reason for not granting full pension, as continuous service is a prerequisite for pensionary benefits.
• ✓ Judges who entered the State Judiciary after the NPS came into effect are governed by the NPS and should not be entitled to pension under the HCJ Act.

Table of Sub-Submissions:

Innovativeness of the Argument:
The petitioners innovatively argued for the principle of “one rank, one pension” to be applied to High Court Judges, emphasizing that the nature of their constitutional office demands equal treatment in pensionary benefits, irrespective of their prior service or source of appointment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether full pension should be granted to petitioners who retired as High Court Judges without considering their services as District Judges.
2. Whether full pension can be denied due to a break in service between retirement as District Judges and assumption of charge as High Court Judges.
3. Whether a High Court Judge who entered the State Judiciary after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into effect is entitled to pension as per the HCJ Act.
4. Whether a Judge who retired as an Additional Judge of the High Court is entitled to full pension.
5. Whether the widow of an Additional Judge of the High Court is entitled to gratuity and family pension.
6. Whether provident fund benefits under Section 20 of the HCJ Act can be denied to judges appointed after the NPS came into effect.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several judicial precedents and legal provisions to arrive at its decision:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court:

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• ✓ M.L. Jain and Another v. Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 355]:
  Cited to emphasize that a retiring Judge’s entire service as a Judge has to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating his pension.
• ✓ M.L. Jain v. Union of India [(1991) 1 SCC 644]:
  Cited to support the view that any restriction imposed in any of the clauses of Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act which would result in reducing the pension than the one provided in Paragraph 2 of both Part I and Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act , would be patently discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• ✓ Kuldip Singh v. Union of India [(2002) 9 SCC 218]:
  Cited to address the issue of parity in pension for judges elevated from the Bar, leading to the addition of 10 years of service for pension calculation.
• ✓ P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and Others [(2014) 12 SCC 1]:
  Cited to reiterate that there should be no discrimination in pension fixation for High Court Judges, irrespective of their source of appointment.
• ✓ Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others [Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 2024]:
  Cited to hold that a break in service between retirement as a District Judge and appointment as a High Court Judge cannot be a ground for denying pension based on the salary drawn as a High Court Judge.
• ✓ Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others [WP(C) No. 1262 of 2021]:
  Cited to direct that pensionary payments be recomputed after giving the benefit of an addition of ten years of service.
• ✓ Justice Shailendra Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others [WP(C) No. 232 of 2023 and WP(C) No. 3 of 2024]:
  Cited to clarify that all judges are entitled to the benefit of GPF under the HCJ Act, irrespective of their appointment date.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure equality and non-discrimination in the pensionary benefits of High Court Judges. The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate of maintaining the independence of the judiciary, which includes financial security post-retirement. The principle of “one rank, one pension” was a significant factor, ensuring that all judges, irrespective of their source of appointment or prior service, receive uniform pension benefits.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected any interpretations that would lead to discrimination among High Court Judges based on their source of appointment or prior service. The final decision was reached by applying the principle of “one rank, one pension” to ensure uniformity and equality in pensionary benefits.

“The constitutional scheme for High Court Judges is unique in that the salaries and allowances payable to Judges of the High Court whichare charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, the pension is charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India. The reason for the same is not far to seek. It is to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is maintained.”

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that all High Court Judges are entitled to uniform pensionary benefits, irrespective of their source of appointment, prior service, or applicability of the New Pension Scheme (NPS). A break in service between the District Judiciary and the High Court cannot be a ground for denying full pension. This decision ensures equality, non-discrimination, and the financial independence of the judiciary, upholding the constitutional mandate.

Obiter Dicta

While the primary focus of the judgment was on pensionary benefits, the Supreme Court made several incidental observations (obiter dicta) that provide additional context and guidance:

• ✓ The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary, not only through security of tenure but also through financial security post-retirement.
• ✓ The Court noted that any interpretation of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, that leads to discrimination among judges would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• ✓ The Court highlighted the need for a uniform and consistent application of pension rules to avoid unnecessary litigation and grievances among retired judges.

Dissenting Opinion

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, delivered a unanimous decision.

Final Order

The Supreme Court issued the following final orders:

1. The services rendered by the petitioners as District Judges must be considered for the purpose of grant of full pension.
2. The denial of full pension on the ground that there was a break in service between the retirement as District Judges and assumption of charge as High Court Judges, is unsustainable.
3. The High Court Judge who entered the State Judiciary after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into effect, would also be entitled to pension as per the provisions of the HCJ Act.
4. The Judge who retired as an Additional Judge of the High Court, would be entitled to the same amount of basic pension as is admissible to a permanent Judge.
5. The widow of an Additional Judge of the High Court, would be entitled to family pension and gratuity.
6. The petitioners would also be entitled to Provident Fund benefits under Section 20 of the HCJ Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in “In Re: Refixation of Pension (2025)” marks a significant step towards ensuring equitable pensionary benefits for High Court Judges. By addressing inconsistencies in pension calculations and clarifying the applicability of the HCJ Act, the Court has reinforced the principle of equality and non-discrimination within the judiciary. This decision not only provides financial security to retired judges but also strengthens the independence of the judiciary, which is essential for upholding the rule of law. The judgment serves as a landmark precedent, ensuring that all High Court Judges receive fair and uniform treatment in their pension benefits, irrespective of their source of appointment or prior service.