Summary
Allowing writ petitions by Patna High Court judges elevated from the district judiciary, the Supreme Court held that every High Court judge is entitled under Section 20 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 to subscribe to the General Provident Fund; the proviso does not exclude former district judges who subscribed to no provident fund, and all High Court judges form one homogenous class whose service and retiral benefits cannot differ by source of appointment. A companion order extended the ten-year addition for pension to a retired judge elevated from the district judiciary.
Issues
- Whether a member of the district judiciary appointed as a High Court judge is entitled to subscribe to the General Provident Fund under Section 20 of the 1954 Act, or is excluded by its proviso because he was covered by the New Pension Scheme as a district judge.
- Whether High Court judges may be treated differently in salary, service conditions or retiral benefits according to whether they were drawn from the Bar or the district judiciary.
- In the companion petition, whether a retired High Court judge elevated from the district judiciary, who had also practised at the Bar, was entitled to have his pension recomputed with an addition of ten years of service.
Provisions considered
- Section 20 and proviso, High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954The substantive part, using 'every' and 'shall', was held mandatory and without exception; the proviso was read as explanatory, letting a judge already subscribing to a provident fund continue it, and, strictly construed, it could not deprive judges who subscribed to no provident fund of the General Provident Fund. (¶¶ 4, 5, 20, 29, 32, 33, 35)
- Article 216, Constitution of IndiaHeld to draw no distinction by source of recruitment, so once appointed every High Court judge ranks at par for salary and service conditions during and after service. (¶¶ 9, 21, 22, 34)
- Article 217, Constitution of IndiaRead as specifying two sources of recruitment (judicial office and the Bar), which has no bearing on the position that appointed judges form one homogenous class. (¶¶ 9, 22, 34)
- Article 221, Constitution of IndiaQuoted; Parliament's power to fix salaries, allowances, leave and pension was traced to a conscious drafting choice for national uniformity and held not to permit discrimination between judges by source of appointment. (¶¶ 10, 11, 17, 23, 24, 25, 34)
- Articles 202(3)(d) and 112(3)(d)(iii), Constitution of IndiaCharging judges' salaries and allowances on the Consolidated Fund of the State and their pensions on the Consolidated Fund of India was relied on as showing the constitutional guarantee of financial independence. (¶¶ 12, 13, 25, 34)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe principle of non-discrimination was applied a fortiori to sitting and former High Court judges irrespective of source, following earlier decisions on pension parity. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- Sections 14A and 15(1)(b), First Schedule Part III, High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954In the separate order in W.P.(C) No. 1262 of 2021 (its own paras 5-11), the ten-year addition available under Section 14A to judges appointed from the Bar was directed to be given to a retired judge elevated from the district judiciary who had elected Part III pension, subject to the maximum pension.
Held
- High Courts are constitutional institutions; once appointed, all judges, whether from the Bar or the district judiciary, hold constitutional office in equal measure and form one homogenous class, and any distinction between them in conditions of service or retiral dues would be unconstitutional. (¶¶ 21, 22, 34)
- Judicial independence is part of the basic structure and is intrinsically linked to judges' financial independence; the constitutional history of Article 221 and the charging of salaries and pensions on the Consolidated Funds show that judges' service conditions were deliberately not left to individual States or to schemes applicable to State civil servants. (¶¶ 13, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34)
- Neither clause (1) nor clause (2) of Article 221 permits discrimination between High Court judges based on the source of appointment, and the Article 14 principle of non-discrimination applies with greater force to sitting and retired judges. (¶¶ 27, 28, 34)
- Section 20 of the 1954 Act entitles every judge to subscribe to the General Provident Fund. The proviso only allows a judge who held a pensionable civil post and was subscribing to a provident fund to continue doing so, so accrued benefits are not disrupted; it is explanatory, not restrictive. (¶ 29)
- Strictly construed, the proviso to Section 20 does not apply to district judges appointed after the New Pension Scheme who subscribed to no provident fund, and cannot be used to deny them the General Provident Fund available under the main provision. (¶¶ 32, 33)
- The Union's communication declaring such judges ineligible for the General Provident Fund because they were covered by the State's contributory scheme misread Section 20 and conflicted with the constitutional status of High Court judges as one class. The Court expressly left undecided the applicability and validity of the New Pension Scheme, which is pending elsewhere. (¶¶ 31, 35)
- In the separate order in W.P.(C) No. 1262 of 2021 (paras 8-11 of that order), following the rule that pension must be computed alike for judges from the Bar and the district judiciary, a retired judge elevated from the Higher Judicial Service who had practised for over fourteen years was held entitled to recomputation of pension with an addition of ten years of service, subject to the maximum basic pension of Rs 13,50,000 per annum.
Result
Petitions allowed. The Union's communication quashed; General Provident Fund accounts to be opened for each petitioner from the date of appointment, with contributions credited at par with other High Court judges; amounts in the New Pension Scheme to be returned to the petitioners within four weeks. In W.P.(C) No. 1262 of 2021, pension to be recomputed with ten years added, subject to the ceiling; arrears from the date of retirement to be computed within three months and paid by 31 March 2025.