Supreme Court Settles Pension Calculation for District Judges Elevated to High Court: Union of India vs. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (2024) INSC 219 (15 March 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 219

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J

Can the service of a District Judge as a High Court Judge be included for pension calculation, despite a break in service between the two roles? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning a former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The core issue was whether the period of service as a District Judge should be combined with the period of service as a High Court Judge for the purpose of calculating pension, even if there was a gap between the two appointments. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, with the opinion authored by the Chief Justice.

Case Background

The first respondent, initially appointed as a Judicial Magistrate in Haryana on 11 May 1981, progressed to Additional District Judge on 26 August 1997, and then to District Judge on 19 July 2010. She was recommended for appointment as a Judge of the High Court in December 2013. She retired as a District Judge on 31 July 2014, and subsequently assumed office as a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 25 September 2014. She retired from the High Court on 4 July 2016. Aggrieved by the calculation of her pensionary benefits, she filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that her entire service period should be considered for pension, despite the gap between her retirement as a District Judge and her appointment as a High Court Judge. The Union of India contested this, claiming the gap constituted a break in service.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The first respondent, a former Judge of the High Court, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the calculation of her pensionary benefits. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled in her favor on 14 August 2018, stating that her service as a High Court Judge should be combined with her service as a District Judge for pension calculation. The Union of India appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954.

✓ Article 217 of the Constitution outlines the qualifications for appointment as a High Court Judge, including having held a judicial office for ten years.

✓ Article 221 of the Constitution addresses the salaries, allowances, and pensions of High Court Judges, stating that these are determined by law made by Parliament.

The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954, was enacted by the Parliament to regulate the salaries and conditions of service of the Judges of the High Court.

✓ Section 2(1)(g) of the Act defines ‘Judge’ as a Judge of a High Court, including the Chief Justice.

✓ Section 14 of the Act stipulates that a Judge is entitled to a pension on retirement, subject to completing twelve years of service, attaining superannuation, or medically certified retirement. The proviso to Section 14 states that if a Judge is in receipt of a pension at the time of their appointment in respect of any previous service in the Union or a State, other than a disability or wound pension, the pension payable under the Act shall be in lieu of and not in addition to that pension.

✓ The Explanation to Section 14 defines a “Judge” for the purpose of this section as one who has not held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State, or a Judge who has held such a post but has elected to receive the pension under Part I of the First Schedule.

✓ Section 15 of the Act provides special provisions for pension for Judges who are members of the service (judicial service), allowing them to elect to receive pension under Part I or Part III of the First Schedule.

✓ Part III of the First Schedule applies to a Judge who has held a pensionable post under the Union or a State and has not elected to receive pension under Part I. It specifies that the pension will be the pension they would have been entitled to under the ordinary rules of service, if they had not been appointed as a Judge, with their service as a Judge being treated as service therein for calculating that pension, along with a special additional pension.

Arguments

Submissions by the Union of India:

• The Union of India argued that the High Court erred in including the respondent’s service as a High Court Judge, condoning the break in service of 54 days.
• The first respondent had not completed twelve years of pensionable service as a Judge of the High Court within the meaning of Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954.
• There was a break in service between the date on which the first respondent retired as a District Judge (31 July 2014) and assumed the office of a Judge of the High Court (25 September 2014). This break could not be condoned under the Act.
• The first respondent having opted to receive her pensionary payments under Part III of the First Schedule, the years of service which were rendered by her as a Judge of the High Court would be cumulated with her service as a member of the district judiciary.
• The pension payable to the first respondent would then be computed on the basis of last drawn salary as a District Judge.
• Since paragraph 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule provides for a special additional pension in respect of each completed year of service, the first respondent would be entitled to that as well.

Submissions by the Respondent:

• The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in holding that the years of service as a member of the district judiciary should be combined with the years of service as a Judge of the High Court.
• The respondent relied on Section 14A of the Act, which provides for an addition of ten years of service to a member of the Bar who is appointed as a Judge of the High Court, arguing that a similar principle should apply to members of the district judiciary.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument was innovative in seeking parity with the benefit extended to High Court Judges appointed from the Bar, highlighting the discrimination if a similar benefit was not extended to those elevated from the district judiciary.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but dealt with the following issues:

1. Whether the service of a District Judge as a High Court Judge can be included for pension calculation, despite a break in service between the two roles?
2. Whether the pension should be calculated based on the last drawn salary as a District Judge or as a High Court Judge?
3. Whether there is discrimination between High Court Judges appointed from the Bar and those elevated from the district judiciary regarding pension calculation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Kuldip Singh vs Union of India [CITATION]: The Court followed this case, which established the principle of adding ten years of service for pension calculation for a member of the Bar appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

✓ Government of NCT of Delhi vs All India Young Lawyers Association (Registered) [CITATION]: The Court followed this case, which extended the principle of adding ten years of service for pension calculation to district judges.

✓ P Ramakrishnam Raju vs Union of India [CITATION]: The Court followed this case, which extended the principle of adding ten years of service for pension calculation to High Court Judges appointed from the Bar, emphasizing non-discrimination between judges from the bar and district judiciary.

✓ M L Jain vs Union of India [CITATION]: The Court followed this case, which held that the last pay drawn by a Judge for pension calculation should be the pay drawn as a Judge of the High Court and not as a District Judge.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure non-discrimination and to uphold the dignity and independence of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that all judges, regardless of their source of appointment (whether from the Bar or the district judiciary), should receive equitable treatment regarding pensionary benefits. The Court also considered the purpose of pension as a means to ensure the independence of the judiciary, which requires dignified conditions of existence for judges both during their tenure and after retirement. The Court also noted that the break in service was not due to any fault of the respondent, and should not prejudice her.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the service of a District Judge as a High Court Judge can be included for pension calculation, despite a break in service between the two roles?

Issue 2: Whether the pension should be calculated based on the last drawn salary as a District Judge or as a High Court Judge?

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the first respondent was entitled to have her service as a Judge of the High Court added to her service as a member of the district judiciary. The Court emphasized that the break in service should not have any adverse implications on her pension calculation. The Court also ruled that the pensionary payments should be computed based on her last drawn salary as a Judge of the High Court, not as a District Judge. The Court ordered that the arrears of pension be paid to the first respondent by 31 March 2024, with interest at 6% per annum.

The Court stated:

“The pensionary payments shall be computed on the basis of her last drawn salary as a Judge of the High Court.”

“The break in her service must necessarily have no adverse implications in computing her pension for the simple reason that her service upon appointment as a High Court Judge was in pursuance of a recommendation which was made during her tenure as a Judge of the district judiciary.”

“Acceptance of the submission of the Union of India would discriminate against Judges of the High Court based on the source from which they are drawn.”

Key Takeaways

• The service of a District Judge as a High Court Judge will be combined for pension calculation, even if there is a break in service between the two roles.
• Pensionary benefits for a District Judge elevated to a High Court Judge will be calculated based on the last drawn salary as a High Court Judge.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of non-discrimination, ensuring that judges from different sources of appointment receive equitable treatment regarding pensionary benefits.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the arrears of pension shall be payable to the first respondent on or before 31 March 2024 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the service of a District Judge as a High Court Judge must be combined for pension calculation, and the pension must be based on the last drawn salary as a High Court Judge. This decision reinforces the principle of non-discrimination and ensures equitable treatment for judges regardless of their source of appointment. This case clarifies the interpretation of Section 15 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954, and emphasizes that a break in service should not prejudice a judge’s pensionary benefits when the subsequent appointment is a continuation of judicial service. This decision also aligns with the principles laid down in P Ramakrishnam Raju vs Union of India, ensuring that pensionary benefits are calculated in a manner that does not discriminate between judges appointed from the bar and those elevated from the district judiciary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg settles the issue of pension calculation for District Judges elevated to High Court Judges. The Court ruled that their service as a High Court Judge must be added to their service as a District Judge for pension calculation, and the pension should be based on the last drawn salary as a High Court Judge. This decision ensures equitable treatment and upholds the independence of the judiciary.

Category

✓ Service Law

✓ Pension

✓ High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954

✓ Section 15, High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954

✓ Constitution of India

✓ Article 217, Constitution of India

✓ Article 221, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: Can a District Judge’s service as a High Court Judge be included for pension calculation if there was a break between the two roles?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the service as a High Court Judge must be included for pension calculation, even if there was a break in service between the two roles. The break in service should not prejudice the judge’s pensionary benefits.

Q: How is the pension calculated for a District Judge who becomes a High Court Judge?

A: The pension is calculated based on the last drawn salary as a High Court Judge, not as a District Judge. The service rendered as a High Court Judge is added to the service as a District Judge for the purpose of calculating the pension.

Q: Does this judgment apply to all judges who are elevated from the district judiciary to the High Court?

A: Yes, this judgment applies to all judges who have been elevated from the district judiciary to the High Court, ensuring that their pension is calculated fairly and without discrimination.

Q: What if the judge has not completed twelve years of service as a High Court Judge?

A: The requirement of twelve years of service under Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954 does not apply in this case. The pension is calculated under Section 15, which allows for the combination of service as a District Judge and a High Court Judge.

Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision?

A: The main reason was to ensure non-discrimination and to uphold the independence of the judiciary by providing equitable pensionary benefits to all judges, regardless of their source of appointment.