Bombay High Court Ruling: Resignation of Judge Equates to Retirement, Entitling Resigned Judges to Pension Benefits

(Judicial Quest News Network)

In a momentous legal development, the Bombay High Court has ruled that the resignation of a High Court judge constitutes retirement, thereby entitling the resigning judge to pension benefits under the High Court Judges Salaries and Conditions of Services Act, 1954. The ruling came after the court reviewed the petition of Pushpa Ganediwala, a former Additional Judge of the High Court, challenging the Registrar’s order that denied her pension despite her resignation.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aaradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre found in favour of Ganediwala, who had contested an earlier order dated November 2, 2022, which held that she was not entitled to a pension. Ganediwala argued that the term “retirement” as defined in Sections 14 and 15 (1) of the Act should not be narrowly interpreted to mean only retirement through superannuation but should also include resignation.

The authorities, however, countered that resignation by a High Court judge led to the forfeiture of pension rights, asserting that “retirement” under the relevant sections of the Act did not cover resignation. They contended that resignation signifies a judge’s unwillingness to continue in office, thereby distinguishing it from retirement.

Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, a distinguished member of the judiciary, has demonstrated exceptional judicial wisdom in her deliberations, particularly while delivering judgements under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Her approach reflects a profound understanding of the sensitive nature of the cases she handles, where the welfare and safety of children are at the heart of every decision.

One of the key elements of her judicial wisdom lies in her ability to meticulously analyse the facts and circumstances of each case, while interpreting the law with both clarity and compassion. In several of her rulings, Justice Ganediwala has emphasized the importance of a balanced approach in ensuring that justice is served, without compromising on the rights of the accused, but always prioritizing the protection of children from sexual offenses.

In cases where the evidence did not conclusively establish the commission of the offense as per the strict provisions of the POCSO Act, Justice Ganediwala has shown remarkable restraint in applying the law. She has underscored the necessity of adhering to legal standards while being mindful of the real-world complexities that often surround cases of child abuse. This careful, reasoned application of the law has been crucial in preventing miscarriages of justice and ensuring that only those who truly deserve punishment face its consequences.

Her judgements have also demonstrated a deep awareness of the need for legal reform in handling cases of sexual offenses against children. By consistently pointing out the importance of strengthening evidence collection methods and ensuring swift justice, Justice Ganediwala has contributed to the ongoing discourse on improving the judicial processes to better serve vulnerable children.

In short, Justice Pushpa Ganediwala’s judgements in POCSO cases reflect a careful blend of legal acumen, compassion, and an firm commitment to ensuring justice for children. Her rulings not only reflect her intellectual prowess but also her sensitivity to the complexities of human emotions and the urgency of safeguarding the rights of minors in our society.

The High Court, however, disagreed with the respondent’s stance, ruling that “retirement” in the context of the Act encompasses resignation. The court emphasized that the term “retirement” has a broad meaning, one of which includes resignation, marking the end of a judge’s career. It further observed that had the legislature intended pension benefits to apply only to judges retiring by superannuation, it would have explicitly stated so.

In its judgment, the court emphasized that the mode of retirement is irrelevant when it comes to eligibility for pension under Sections 14 and 15 (1) of the 1954 Act. Notably, the court pointed out that other judges who had resigned were receiving pension benefits, yet no satisfactory explanation had been provided by the authorities as to why Ganediwala’s case should be treated differently.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Ganediwala be granted pension benefits, effective from February 14, 2022, and imposed costs on the respondent authorities for their failure to justify the denial of pension.

“From careful scrutiny of Section 14 and 15 of 1954 Act, it is evident that the entitlement of a judge to pension is on his retirement and the same includes an involuntary act as well inasmuch as retirement on account of ill-health is as contemplated by clause 14(c) of 1956 Act is an involuntary act. The resignation as well as the retirement, both result in the conclusion of the service career. In fact, the resignation is one of the modes of retirement from service and is a voluntary act. In case the

Legislature intended to confine the benefits of pension only to a Judge who has retired on superannuation, it would have expressly said so. The word ‘retirement’ in Sections 14 and 15 of 1954 Act has not been used in a restricted sense to mean retirement on superannuation only.”

The court in its order further said that “It is also pertinent to note that five former Judges of this Court who had tendered their resignations are being paid the pension. However, no explanation worth name has been offered on behalf of the respondents for taking a different stand in the

case of the petitioner alone. It is also pertinent to note that the division bench of this Court in Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande Vs High Court of Judicature of Bombay11 though did not expressly deal with the issue involved in the writ petition, yet concluded that the Judge who demitted his office as an additional Judge of this Court is entitled to pension”

The court thus quashed the impugned order and held that Ganediwala vs High Court of Judicature of Bombay Through Registrar General (WP/15018/2023)