Judicial Equality :Ex-Allahabad High Court Judge Moves Supreme Court For Uniform Pension Benefits Urges Authorities to Implement Equality Across Bench

(Judicial Quest News Network)

In a significant development the Supreme Court of India has called for response from Allahabad High Court and both the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments on a plea seeking one rank one pension for retitred \service quota judges, i.e High Court judges who were appointed from the district judiciary and not the bar [Justice Ajit Singh (Retd.)vs Union of India and ors].

The petitioner among other reliefs sought a declaration that retired judges are entitled to addition of the lenthg of service as Judicial Officer prior to elevation as High Court Judge for computation of pension and other retiral benefits under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

Petitioner Justice Ajit Singh is a retired judge of the hon’ble high court of judicature at Allahabad who has been elevated as the high court judge from the higher judicial service of the state in the year 2005 and thereafter, elevated as a judge of the Allahabad high court on 22.11.2018. However, it is submitted that after retirement a pension of rs. 1, 80,064/- per annum has been sanctioned to petitioner.

It is submitted that the Petitioner is compelled to exercise his Fundamental Rights under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to directly file the present Petition for protection of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India due to the extraordinary facts and circumstances of the present case as the petitioner after serving in Higher Judicial Service of the state of U.P. and thereafter had been Judge of Allahabad High Court after retirement is getting a meager pension of Rs.15005/- per month only.

The present Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court also in view of the fact that the issue involved in this case has repercussion for Judges of other High Courts also who have been elevated from judicial service and were subscribing to NPS during their service as Judicial Officers. It is important to mention that in similar Writ Petition (C) No. 232 of 2023 pending before this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to issue notice and also pass interim order.

In the present petition the letter dated 25.06.2019 of the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India has been put to a challenge. As per the communication, High CourtJudges elevated from services and previously covered by the Contributory Pension Scheme are not allowed to participate in the General Provident Fund (Central Services). The said communication, while referring to part III of the High Court Judges Salaries and Conditions of Services), Act 1954, further stated that pension payable to a judge, who has held any pensionable post under the Union or State, would be the pension to which he was wntitled under the ordinaryrules of his service, if he had not been appointed as Judge of the High Court.

Further it is submitted that the present Pension rate is ‘not adequate for survival befitting the status of the petitioner the plea said.Because it is arbitrary to take stand that a period of ten years will be added in case of Judges who are elevated from Bar for J. K. computation of pension and other retiral benefits but the period of service as rendered by High Court Judges during judicial service before elevation will not be added to the length of service for computation of pension and other retiral benefits.Because it is arbitrary to take stand that a period of ten years will be added in case of judges who are elevated from Bar for J. K. computation of pension and other retiral benefits but the period of service as rendered by High Court Judges during judicial service before elevation will not be added to the length of service for computation of pension and other retiral benefits.

The petitioner sought the quashing of the Law Ministry’s Letter and has also prayed that the pension for retired High Court judges appointed from district judiciary should be equivalent to the pension for High Court judges appointed from the bar.

This should be done by taking into account tenure of service as a judge of the judiciary, the petitioner submitted.

Senior Advocate and retire Allahabad High Court Judge Sudhir Kumar Saxena with Advocates Aviral Saxena , Piyush Thanvi, Mohammed Imran Ahmed, and Shrawani appeared for retired Justice Singh

In the recent past the Supreme Court had observed in another case that retired district judges were not being given enough pension.

 The Court had also stated that some High Court Judges were not being paid pension after retirement.

It is also stressed that the elevation process to become a High Court judge involves a complex evaluation, with candidates being selected by the High Court collegium after a meticulous assessment of their performance in the legal profession.The recomnedations subsequently undergo scrutiny by state and central governments, and the apex court’s collegium finalizes the selections. However, the petitioner argues that this intricate process, marked by uncertainities and delays, should not be determimnent of pension entitlement.

The petitioner contends that the linking pension entitlement to the length of service, a factor dependent on uncertain elements, is inherently unfair and arbitrary. Unlike other constitutional positions,High Court Judges, cannot influence or expedite the process,making it unjust to subject their entitlements to execute delays.The petitioner asserts that no other constiotutional position faces such an unpredictable and uncontrollable factor for pension eligibility.

The CJI DY Chandrachud, brough attention to the dire financial conditions faced by retired judges, emphasising that they were receiving pensions as low as Rs. 19,000-20,000 after years of dedicated service. He pointed out the challenges of transitioning to other avenues at an age when they are physically unable to engage in active legal practice.

He had expressed,” The retired district judges are clocking a pension of Rs. 19000/- 20000/- after a long service how do they servive? This is the kind of office where you are completely disabled, you cannot suddenly jump into practice and go the High Court at the age of 61-62 years and start practising.