Summary
A judge who retired while serving as Acting Chief Justice claimed the pensionary benefits and ceiling applicable to a retired Chief Justice. Reading the pension rules together, the Court held that acting service attracted the Chief Justice rate for that period of computation but did not confer the substantive status or higher pension ceiling. The petition was dismissed without deciding whether the petitioner could change his earlier pension election.
Issues
- Whether retirement as Acting Chief Justice conferred the pension ceiling of a retired Chief Justice.
- What effect the rule deeming acting service to be Chief Justice service had on pension computation.
Provisions considered
- First Schedule, Part I, paragraphs 2 and 7, High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954Read together, the provisions count acting service at the Chief Justice rate for the relevant period without conferring the higher ceiling reserved for a Chief Justice. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.3, 7)
Held
- The Court assumed for adjudication that Part I applied, leaving open whether the petitioner could switch from his original Part III election. (¶ 5.3)
- An Acting Chief Justice performing duties under Article 223 remains distinct from a Chief Justice appointed under Article 217. Constitutional parity in salary during acting service did not confer general pension parity. (¶¶ 6.2, 6.3)
- The fourteen months of acting service were to be counted at the rate applicable to Chief Justice service, and the other years as service of a High Court judge. The deeming provision did not entitle the petitioner to the retired Chief Justice’s pension ceiling. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.3, 7, 8)
Result
The writ petition and claim for a declaration of entitlement to a retired Chief Justice’s pensionary benefits, including the higher ceiling, were dismissed.