NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ordered the Centre to follow the principle of 'One Rank One Pension' to all the retired judges of the High Courts irrespective of their source of entry i.e., district judiciary or the Bar, and irrespective of number of years that they have served either as a district judge or a High Court judge.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai ordered the retired Chief Justices of the High Courts would be entitled to full pension of Rs 15,00,000 per annum and the retired judges of the High Courts to Rs 13,50,000 per annum.
When an equal treatment is given to all the judges of the High Courts as they are in service and forming a class of judges of the High Court, discrimination amongst them on any ground after their retirement for terminal benefits would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the court said.
"When all the judges of the High Courts, when in office, are entitled to the same salary, perks and benefits, any discrimination amongst them on the ground of their source of entry, in our view, would be patently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," the bench, also comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran, said.
The court held that permitting different States to have different terminal benefits would again lead to discrimination.
In its judgment in a suo motu matter registered as 'Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary And High Court' in 2024, the bench emphasised Article 216 (composition of the HC) of the Constitution does not permit any discrimination between the source from which judges of the High Court are recruited.
"The principle of one rank one pension requires all retired Judges of the High Court to be paid a uniform pension. We find that once a Judge assumes the office of the High Court Judge and enters into a constitutional class i.e., the class of a High Court Judge, no differential treatment would be permissible merely on the ground of date of appointment," the bench said.
The court also said the definition of a “judge” is wide enough to include a Chief Justice, an acting Chief Justice, an additional judge and an acting Judge of the High Court.
It also said the denial of family pension merely on the ground that a judge died in harness as an Additional Judge, was patently arbitrary.
The court held that the widow or family members of even Additional Judges would be entitled to family pension in accordance with Section 17A of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 Act.
The bench also directed the Union government to pay full pension to a retired HC judge, irrespective of any break-in-service between the date on which he or she retired as a judge of the district judiciary and the date on which he or she assumed charge as a judge of the High Court.
