Summary
A former District Judge electing pension under Part III was entitled to combine her High Court and district-judiciary service and have pension calculated on her last High Court salary. The gap between district retirement and elevation, caused by processing a recommendation made while she remained in service, did not defeat that entitlement. Section 14’s twelve-year objection was inapplicable to her Part III election. The Court directed payment of pension arrears with six per cent interest by 31 March 2024.
Issues
- Whether the intervening service gap barred aggregation of judicial service for pension.
- Whether Section 14’s conditions applied despite election under Part III.
- Whether the relevant salary was that of a District Judge or High Court Judge.
Provisions considered
- Section 14 and its Explanation, High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954The restricted definition for this section excluded a former service judge who had not elected Part I; the Union’s twelve-year service objection under it therefore failed. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 21, 26)
- Section 15; First Schedule, Part III, paragraph 2, High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954High Court service was to be cumulated with district service for pension, with the special additional pension as prescribed. No relevant provision disqualified the judge for the processing-related gap. (¶¶ 12, 13, 22, 27, 31)
- Section 14A, High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954The Bar-appointee provision informed the parity analysis; the Court did not award an additional ten years to this service-appointee. (¶¶ 23, 24, 28, 30)
- Articles 14 and 221; judicial independence, Constitution of IndiaPension conditions must reflect the office’s independence and avoid discrimination based on the source of appointment. Last High Court salary governed the computation. (¶¶ 8, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32)
Held
- A judge who elected Part III pension fell under Section 15 and paragraph 2 of Part III, rather than Section 14’s restricted pension category. The contention that her short High Court tenure failed Section 14’s twelve-year requirement was consequently misplaced. (¶¶ 21, 22, 26, 27)
- Part III required her High Court tenure to be treated as further service for the pension calculation and cumulated with her district-judiciary service, together with the prescribed special additional pension. Nothing established that the intervening gap made this scheme unavailable. (¶¶ 13, 22, 27)
- The elevation recommendation had been made during district service. The gap between superannuation and assumption of High Court office resulted from processing that recommendation and was not attributable to her conduct. It could not render the later actual service inconsequential for pension. (¶¶ 3, 27, 31)
- Under the governing precedent, the last pay used for this pension calculation must be the pay as a High Court Judge, not the earlier District Judge salary. Using the latter would discriminate between High Court judges according to their source of appointment and conflict with the statutory scheme. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 32)
- Dignified judicial pension protects independence by securing post-retirement conditions and supporting performance of judicial duties without fear or favour. The statute must be interpreted consistently with that public purpose. (¶ 25)
- The appeal was disposed of by affirming aggregation of actual service and directing calculation on the last High Court salary. Pension arrears, with six per cent annual interest, were payable by 31 March 2024, the deadline fixed in this judgment. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34)
Result
Appeal disposed of. District and High Court service to be aggregated for Part III pension on the last High Court salary; intervening processing-related gap to have no adverse effect. Arrears directed by 31 March 2024 with six per cent annual interest.