In Re Refixation Of Pension Considering Service Period In District Judiciary And High Court vs. NaN

REPORTABLE

2025 INSC 726
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4 OF 2024


IN RE: REFIXATION OF PENSION CONSIDERING
SERVICE PERIOD IN DISTRICT JUDICIARY AND
HIGH COURT

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 993 OF 2017
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1048 OF 2017
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 548 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 911 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 86 OF 2019
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1542 OF 2019
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 660 OF 2023
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 102 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ________ OF 2025
DIARY NO. 25226 OF 2024







Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.05.19
13:42:43 IST
Reason:
1

INDEX


I. INTRODUCTION AND A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES ...... 3
II. LEGAL PROVISIONS ................................................................ 8
a. Article 221 of the Constitution of India ............................... 8
b. High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act,
1954 .......................................................................................... 9
i. Section 2........................................................................... 9
ii. Section 13A .................................................................... 11
iii. Section 14....................................................................... 11
iv. Section 15....................................................................... 13
v. Section 17A .................................................................... 15
vi. First Schedule – Part I and Part III ................................. 19
III. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ..................................................... 22
a. M.L. Jain and Another v. Union of India [M L Jain (I)] ......... 23
b. M.L. Jain v. Union of India [M L Jain (II) ............................. 24
c. Kuldip Singh v. Union of India ........................................... 26
d. P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and Others ......... 29
e. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice v. Justice (Retd)
Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others .............................. 35
f. Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others ....... 39
g. Justice Shailendra Singh and Others v. Union of India and
Others ...................................................................................... 41
IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ............................................... 45
a. Non-consideration of services rendered as District Judges
for payment of Full Pension ..................................................... 48
b. Denial of Full Pension owing to break-in-service ................ 52
c. Denial of Full Pension to Retired High Court Judges who
enter the State Judiciary after NPS came into effect ............... 53
d. Denial of Full Pension to Judges who retired as Additional
Judges ..................................................................................... 55
e. Denial of Family Pension and Gratuity to widows/family
members of Additional Judges of High Court ........................... 56
f. Denial of Provident Fund as payable under the HCJ Act .... 58
V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 59


2

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

I. INTRODUCTION AND A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE
ISSUES

1. This batch of matters concerns various issues with
regard to pension payable to retired Judges of the High
Courts including the payment of gratuity and other terminal
benefits.
2. Various matters concern different issues. In some of the
matters, more than one issue is involved. Therefore, for the
sake of clarity, we propose to identify the various issues
involved in different matters.
3. The first issue, that is involved in the following matters,
pertains to non-grant of full pension to the petitioners who
have retired as High Court Judges without taking into
consideration the services rendered by them as District
Judges:
(i) In Re Refixation of Pension Considering Service
Period in District Judiciary and High Court
[SMW(C) No.4/2024];
(ii) Justice M Vijayaraghavan v. Union of India [WP(C)
No.993/2017];
3

(iii) Justice Malai Subramaniam v. Union of India
[WP(C) No.1048/2017;
(iv) Justice Alok Kumar Mukherjee v. Union of India
[WP(C) No.911/2018];
Justice Surendra Kumar v. Union of India [WP(C)
(v)
No.86/2019;
(vi) Justice Het Singh v. Union of India [WP(C)
No.1542/2019]; and
(vii) Justice Ajit Singh v. Union of India [WP(C)
No.102/2024]

4. The second issue, that is involved in the following
matters, is with regard to denial of full pension on the
ground of break-in service for a period between the date on
which they retired as District Judges and the date on which
they assumed the charge as High Court Judges:
(i) In Re Refixation of Pension Considering Service
Period in District Judiciary and High Court
[SMW(C) No.4/2024];
(ii) Justice M Vijayaraghavan v. Union of India [WP(C)
No.993/2017];

(iii) Justice Alok Kumar Mukherjee v. Union of India
[WP(C) No.911/2018]; and
(iv) Justice Surendra Kumar v. Union of India [WP(C)
No.86/2019;

4

5. The third issue which arises in the case of Justice Ajit
Singh v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 102/2024] is as to
whether the petitioner who retired as a High Court Judge but
entered into the State Judiciary after the New Pension
Scheme (NPS) came into effect would be entitled to pension
as per the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of
1
Service) Act, 1954 or not.
6. The fourth issue, that is involved in the following cases,
is as to whether a Judge who has retired as an Additional
Judge of the High Court would be entitled to full pension or
not:
(i) In Re Refixation of Pension Considering Service
Period in District Judiciary and High Court
[SMW(C) No.4/2024];
(ii) Elavarasi Veeraraghavan (Dead) Thr. LRs. v.
Union of India [WP(C) No.548/2018]; and
(iii) Justice Surendra Kumar v. Union of India [WP(C)
No.86/2019;

7. The fifth issue which arises in the case of Elavarasi
Veeraraghavan (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. Union of India [WP(C)
No. 548/2018] is as to whether the petitioner therein who is

1
Hereinafter “HCJ Act”.
5

the widow of an Additional Judge of the High Court would be
entitled to gratuity and family pension or not. The petitioner
therein has been denied gratuity on the ground that her
husband did not complete the qualifying service of 2 years
and 6 months as required under Section 17A of the HCJ Act.
She has also been denied the family pension on the ground
that her husband died as an Additional Judge of the High
Court.
8. The sixth issue, involved in the following cases,
concerns the denial of provident fund as payable under
Section 20 of the HCJ Act on the ground that they were
appointed after NPS came into effect:
(i) Justice Vikas Kunwar Srivastav v. Union of India
[WP(C) No.660/2023];
(ii) Justice Rajendra Kumar v. Union of India [Diary
No.25226/2024]; and
(iii) Justice Ajit Singh v. Union of India [WP(C)
No.102/2024]

9. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus
Curiae and Shri R. Venkatramani, learned Attorney General
for India appearing for the Union of India. We have also
heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, Shri Manoj Goel, Shri S.B.
6

Upadhyaya, Shri Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Shri Prem
Prakash, learned Senior Counsel/leaned counsel appearing
on behalf of different parties.
10.
At the outset, we must state that the learned Attorney
General appearing on behalf of the Union of India fairly
submitted that various issues involved in the present matter
have already been decided by the judgment and order of this
Court in the cases of Union of India, Ministry of Law &
Justice v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain)
2
and Others [Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 2024] , Justice
Shailendra Singh and Others v. Union of India and
3
Others [WP(C) No. 232 of 2023 and WP(C) No. 3 of 2024]
and Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and
4
Others [WP(C) No. 1262 of 2021] . We find that, insofar as
the issue of payment of pension to the retired Judges of the
High Court is concerned, it is largely covered by this Court in
the aforesaid judgments. However, we find that in order to
put to rest all controversies with regard to the said subject,
some ironing out of the creases is required to be done.

2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 321 : 2024 INSC 219
3
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3207 : 2024 INSC 862
4
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3207 : 2024 INSC 862
7

11. We further find that insofar as the issue of payment of
pension to the Judges of the High Court who entered into the
District Judiciary after the NPS came into effect so also the
issue with regard to payment of gratuity and family pension
to the widow or family members of the deceased Judges of
the High Court are required to be considered by this Court.
II. LEGAL PROVISIONS
a. Article 221 of the Constitution of India
12. It will be relevant to refer to Article 221 of the
Constitution of India, which reads thus:
“ 221. Salaries etc., of Judges .—(1) There shall be
paid to the Judges of each High Court such salaries
as may be determined by Parliament by law and,
until provision in that behalf is so made, such
salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule.
(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances
and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and
pension as may from time to time be determined by
or under law made by Parliament and, until so
determined, to such allowances and rights as are
specified in the Second Schedule:
Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor
his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension
shall be varied to his disadvantage after his
appointment.”

13. Article 221 of the Constitution of India provides that
each of the Judges of the High Court shall be paid such
8

salaries as may be determined by Parliament by law. It
further provides that, until such a law is enacted, such
salaries would be paid as specified in the Second Schedule of
the Constitution. Clause 2 of Article 221 provides that every
Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights
in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time
to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament. It
further provides that, until such a law is enacted, the same
shall be paid in accordance with specifications made in the
Second Schedule of the Constitution. The proviso thereto
provides that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights
in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to
his disadvantage after his appointment.
b. High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of
Service) Act, 1954
i. Section 2

14. In exercise of the provisions of Article 221 of the
th
Constitution, the Parliament has enacted the HCJ Act on 20
May, 1954. The Preamble of the HCJ Act states that it is an
Act to regulate salaries and conditions of service of Judges of
High Courts . It will be relevant to refer to clauses (g) and (gg)
9

of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the HCJ Act, which read
thus:
“ 2. Definitions.-
1. …………
…………
( g ) “Judge” means a Judge of a High Court and
includes the Chief Justice an acting Chief Justice,
an additional Judge and an acting Judge of the
High Court;
( gg ) “pension” means a pension of any kind
whatsoever payable to or in respect of a Judge, and
includes any gratuity or other sum or sums so
payable by way of death or retirement benefits;”

15. Upon a perusal of the definition of a “Judge” as provided
in clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the HCJ Act, it
is clear that the definition of a “Judge” is wide and it
includes in its scope and ambit the Chief Justice, an Acting
Chief Justice, an additional Judge and also an acting Judge
of the High Court.
16. Clause (gg) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the HCJ Act
which defines “pension” provides that pension means a
pension of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of a
Judge and includes any gratuity or other sum or sums so
payable by way of death or retirement benefits.
10

ii. Section 13A
17. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 13A of the HCJ
Act, which reads thus:
“ 13A. Salaries of the Judges .—(1) There shall be
paid to the Chief Justice of a High Court, by way of
salary, two lakh fifty thousand rupees per mensem.
(2) There shall be paid to a Judge of a High Court,
by way of salary, two lakh twenty-five thousand
rupees per mensem].”

18. Section 13A of the HCJ Act provides that the salary that
shall be paid to the Chief Justice of the High Court would be
Rs.2,50,000/- per month. Sub-section (2) thereof provides
that the salary of a Judge of the High Court would be
Rs.2,25,000/- per month.
iii. Section 14

Provided that no such pension shall be payable to a
Judge unless—
( a ) he has completed not less than twelve
years of service for pension; or
11

( b ) he has attained the age of sixty-two
years; or
( c ) his retirement is medically certified to
be necessitated by ill-health:
Provided further that if a Judge at the time of his
appointment is in receipt of a pension (other than a
disability or wound pension) in respect of any
previous service in the Union or a State, the pension
payable under this Act shall be in lieu of, and not in
addition to, that pension.
Explanation .—In this section “Judge” means a
Judge who has not held any other pensionable post
under the Union or a State and includes a Judge
who having held any other pensionable post under
the Union or a State has elected to receive the
pension payable under Part I of the First Schedule.”

20. It can thus be seen that a Judge, on his retirement, is
required to be paid a pension in accordance with the scale
and provisions in Part I of the First Schedule of the HCJ Act.
However, proviso thereto provides that no such pension shall
be payable to a Judge unless he has completed not less than
twelve years of service for pension; or he has attained the age
of sixty-two years; or his retirement is medically certified to
be necessitated by ill-health. The second proviso thereto
provides that if a Judge at the time of his appointment is in
receipt of a pension (other than a disability or wound
pension) in respect of any previous service in the Union or a
State, the pension payable under the HCJ Act shall be in lieu
12

of, and not in addition to, that pension. The explanation
thereto provides that, under the said provision, a “Judge”
means a Judge who has not held any other pensionable post
under the Union or a State and includes a Judge who having
held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State
has elected to receive the pension payable under Part I of the
First Schedule.
iv. Section 15

( a ) *
( b ) who has held any other
pensionable post under the Union or a
State, shall, on his retirement, be paid a
pension in accordance with the scale and
provisions in Part III of the First
Schedule:
Provided that every such Judge shall elect to receive
the pension payable to him either under Part I of
the First Schedule or, Part III of the First Schedule,
and the pension payable to him shall be calculated
accordingly.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), any Judge to whom that sub-section
applies and who is in service on or after the 1st day
of October, 1974, may, if he has elected under the
proviso to that sub-section to receive the pension
13

payable to him under Part III of the First Schedule
before the date on which the High Court Judges
(Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1976,
receives the assent of the President, cancel such
election and elect afresh to receive the pension
payable to him under Part I of the First Schedule
and any such Judge who dies before the date of
such assent shall be deemed to have elected afresh
to be governed by the provisions of the said Part I if
the provisions of that Part are more favourable in
his case.”

22. It can thus be seen that clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 15 of the HCJ Act provides that every Judge,
who has held any other pensionable post under the Union or
a State, shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in
accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of the
First Schedule of the HCJ Act. The thereto provides
proviso
that every such Judge shall elect to receive the pension
payable to him either under Part I of the First Schedule
or, Part III of the First Schedule, and the pension payable to
him shall be calculated accordingly. Sub-section (2) thereof
provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), any Judge to whom that sub-section applies and
who is in service on or after the first day of October, 1974,
may, if he has elected under the proviso to that sub-section
to receive the pension payable to him under Part III of the
14

First Schedule before the date on which the High Court
Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1976,
receives the assent of the President, cancel such election and
elect afresh to receive the pension payable to him under Part
I of the First Schedule. It further provides that any such
Judge who dies before the date of such assent shall be
deemed to have elected afresh to be governed by the
provisions of the said Part I if the provisions of that Part are
more favourable in his case. It is to be noted that sub-
section (2) of Section 15 of the HCJ Act was inserted by
st
Amendment Act 35 of 1976 with effect from 1 October
1974.
v. Section 17A

15

on which the Judge would have attained the age of
sixty-five years, had he survived, whichever is
earlier, and thereafter at the rate of thirty per cent
of his salary:
Provided that in no case the amount of family
pension calculated under this sub-section shall
exceed the pension payable to the Judge under this
Act.
Explanation .—For the purposes of determining the
person or persons entitled to family pension under
this sub-section,—
( i ) in relation to a Judge who elects or is
eligible to receive pension under Part I of
the First Schedule, the rules,
notifications and orders for the time
being in force with regard to the person
or persons entitled to family pension in
relation to an officer of the Central Civil
Services, Group ‘A’, shall apply;
( ii ) in relation to a Judge who elects to
receive pension under Part III of the First
Schedule, the ordinary rules of his
service if he had not been appointed a
Judge with respect to the person or
persons entitled to family pension shall
apply and his service as a Judge being
treated as service therein.
(2) Where any Judge, who has elected to receive the
pension payable to him under Part III of the First
Schedule, retires, or dies in circumstances to which
Section 17 does not apply, gratuity, if any, shall be
payable to the person or persons entitled thereto
under the ordinary rules of his service if he had not
been appointed a Judge, his service as a Judge
being treated as service therein for the purpose of
calculating that gratuity.
(3) The rules, notifications and orders for the time
being in force with respect to the grant of death-
-retirement gratuity benefit to or in relation to
cum
an officer of the Central Civil Services, Class I
16

(including the provisions relating to deductions from
pension for the purpose) shall apply to or in relation
to the grant of death- cum -retirement gratuity benefit
to or in relation to a Judge who, being in service on
or after the 1st day of October, 1974, retires, or dies
in circumstances to which Section 17 does not
apply, subject to the modifications that—
( i ) the minimum qualifying service for the
purpose of entitlement to the gratuity
shall be two years and six months;
( ii ) the amount of gratuity shall be
calculated on the basis of ten days’ salary
for each completed six months period of
service as a Judge;
*
Explanation. –In sub-section (3), the expression “Judge”
has same meaning as in Section 14”

24. It can thus be seen that sub-section (1) of Section 17A
of the HCJ Act provides that where a Judge who, being in
service on or after the commencement of the High Court and
Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment
Act, 1986, dies, whether before or after retirement in
circumstances to which Section 17 does not apply, family
pension calculated at the rate of fifty per cent of his salary on
the date of his death shall be payable to the person or
persons entitled thereto. It further provides that the amount
so payable shall be paid from the day following the date of
death of the Judge for a period of seven years or for a period
17

up to the date on which the Judge would have attained the
age of 65 years, had he survived, whichever is earlier. It
further provides that thereafter such a family pension would
be payable at the rate of thirty per cent of his salary. The
proviso thereto provides that in no case the amount of family
pension calculated under sub-section (1) of Section 17A shall
exceed the pension payable to the Judge under the HCJ Act.
25. Sub-section (2) of Section 17A of the HCJ Act provides
that where any Judge, who has elected to receive the pension
payable to him under Part III of the First Schedule of the HCJ
Act, retires, or dies in circumstances to which Section 17 of
the HCJ Act does not apply, gratuity, if any, shall be payable
to the person or persons entitled thereto under the ordinary
rules of his service if he had not been appointed a Judge. It
further provides that for the said purpose, his service as a
Judge would be treated as service therein for the purpose of
calculating such gratuity.

26. Clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 17A of the HCJ
Act provides that the minimum qualifying service for the
purpose of entitlement to the gratuity shall be 2 years and 6
months.
18

vi. First Schedule – Part I and Part III
27. Part I of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act reads thus:
“ THE FIRST SCHEDULE
( See Sections 14 and 15)
Pensions of Judges
ART
P I
1. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who
has not held any other pensionable post under the
Union or a State or a Judge who having held any
other pensionable post under the Union or a State
has elected to receive the pension payable under
this Part.
2. Subject to the other provisions of this Part, the
pension payable to a Judge to whom this Part
applies for pension shall be,—
( a ) for service as Chief Justice in any
High Court, Rs. 1,21,575 per annum for
each completed year of service;
( b ) for service as any other Judge in any
High Court Rs. 96,524 per annum for
each completed year of service:
Provided that the pension under this paragraph
shall in no case exceed Rs. 15,00,000 per annum in
the case of a Chief Justice and Rs. 13,50,000 per
annum in the case of any other Judge.

6. A Judge who has rendered service for pension
both as Chief Justice and other Judge in any High
Court may claim that any period of service of less
than a completed year rendered by him as Chief
Justice, or any portion of any such period, shall be
treated for the purposes of paragraph 2 as service
rendered by him as other Judge.
7. For the purposes of this Part, service as an acting
Chief Justice of a High Court or as an ad hoc Judge
19

of the Supreme Court, shall be treated as though it
were service rendered as Chief Justice of a High
Court.”

28. Paragraph 1 of Part I of the First Schedule to the HCJ
Act provides that the provisions of the said Part would apply
to a Judge who has not held any other pensionable post
under the Union or a State or a Judge who having held any
other pensionable post under the Union or a State has
elected to receive the pension payable under Part I of the
First Schedule. Paragraph 2 thereof provides that subject to
the other provisions of the said Part, the pension payable to a
Judge to whom this Part applies shall be, for service as Chief
Justice in any High Court, Rs.1,21,575/- per annum for each
completed year of service; and for service as any other Judge
in any High Court shall be Rs.96,524/- per annum for each
completed year of service. The proviso thereto provides that
the pension under the said Paragraph shall in no case
exceed Rs.15,00,000/- per annum in the case of a Chief
Justice in any High Court and Rs.13,50,000/- per annum in
the case of any other Judge in any High Court.

20

29. Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act reads thus:
“ THE FIRST SCHEDULE
( Sections 14 and 15)
See
Pensions of Judges
P ART III
1. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who
has held any pensionable post under the Union or a
State (but is not a member of the Indian Civil
Service) and who has not elected to receive the
pension payable under Part I.
2. The pension payable to such a Judge shall be—
( a ) the pension to which he is entitled
under the ordinary rules of his service if
he had not been appointed a Judge, his
service as a Judge being treated as
service therein for the purpose of
calculating that pension; and
( b ) a special additional pension of Rs.
45,016 per annum in respect of each
completed year of service for pension:
Provided that the pension under clause ( a ) and the
additional pension under ( b ) together shall in no
case exceed Rs. 15,00,000 per annum in the case of
a Chief Justice and Rs. 13,50,000 per annum in the
case of any other Judge.”

30. A perusal of Paragraph 1 of Part III of the First Schedule
to the HCJ Act would reveal that the provisions of the said
Part apply to a Judge who has held any pensionable post
under the Union or a State and who has not elected to
receive the pension payable under Part I. It, however, does
not apply to a member of the Indian Civil Service. Clause (a)
21

of Paragraph 2 thereof provides that the pension payable to
such a Judge shall be the pension to which he is entitled to
under the ordinary rules of his service if he had not been
appointed a Judge. Further, it provides that his service as a
Judge would be treated as service therein for the purpose of
calculating that pension. Clause (b) of Paragraph 2 thereof
provides that a special additional pension of Rs.45,016/- per
annum in respect of each completed year of service would be
included in pension. The proviso thereto provides that the
pension under clause ( a ) of Paragraph 2 and the additional
pension under clause ( b ) of Paragraph 2 together shall in no
case exceed Rs.15,00,000/- per annum in the case of a Chief
Justice and Rs.13,50,000/- per annum in the case of any
other Judge.
III. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

31. The issues outlined by us in the earlier part of the
judgment with regard to pension and other terminal benefits
as payable under the HCJ Act, have undergone judicial
scrutiny by this Court on a number of occasions previously.
It will, therefore, be appropriate to place reliance on the
22

judgments of this Court which are germane for consideration
of the issues which arise in the present case.
a. M.L. Jain and Another v. Union of India [M L Jain (I)]
32. As early as 1985, this Court, in the case of M.L. Jain
5
and Another v. Union of India , was considering the case of
the Petitioner No. 1 therein who was a member of Rajasthan
st st
Judiciary from 31 September 1945 till 1 July 1975. During
the said period, he was a District and Sessions Judge, from
th st
9 November 1970 to 1 July 1975. Thereafter, he was
st
elevated as a Judge of the High Court on 1 July 1975. He
st
retired as a Judge of the High Court on 21 July 1984. His
total period of service as a Judicial Officer, otherwise than as
a Judge of the High Court was 29 years, 9 months and 1 day
while his service as a Judge of the High Court was for a
period of 9 years and 21 days. Upon his appointment as a
Judge of the High Court, he opted for Part III of the First
Schedule to the HCJ Act for the purpose of his pension. The
calculation for payment of pension was made on the basis
that had he continued as a District and Sessions Judge he
st
would have retired on 31 July 1977. The calculations were

5
(1985) 2 SCC 355 : 1985 INSC 78 [hereinafter, “M L Jain (I)”]
23

b. M.L. Jain v. Union of India [M L Jain (II)
33. Petitioner No. 1 therein was required to approach this
Court time and again for revision of his pension on account
of certain amendments to the HCJ Act. This Court in another
6
case titled as M.L. Jain v. Union of India , was considering
the provision in clause (b) of Paragraph 2 of Part III of the
First Schedule to the HCJ Act which imposes a ceiling of
Rs.8,000/- per annum in respect of each completed year of
service on special additional pension to which a Judge would

6
(1991) 1 SCC 644 : 1991 INSC 11 [hereinafter, “M L Jain (II)”]
24

34. This Court further held Paragraph 2(b) of Part III of the
First Schedule to the HCJ Act ultra vires and as such, all
25

cases to which the situation therein applied were to be
revised by the Union of India without requiring
representations or applications from the retired Judges
concerned.
c. Kuldip Singh v. Union of India
35. Thereafter, one of the issues that came up for
consideration before this Court was as to whether the Judges
appointed from the Bar would be entitled to extra years of
service for the purposes of pension. The issue arose since the
pension was linked to the tenure of the Judge in the District
Judiciary and the High Court or the Supreme Court
thereafter. As a consequence a Judge elevated or appointed
from the Bar either to the High Court or to the Supreme
Court would receive a lower pension than a Judge elevated or
appointed from the service. In the case of Kuldip Singh v.
7
Union of India , a retired Judge of this Court had filed a
writ petition seeking the addition of 10 years to his service for
the purposes of pension. This was necessitated since the
legal regime at the relevant time, i.e., Part I of the First
Schedule of the Supreme Court Judges (Salary and

7
(2002) 9 SCC 218 : 2002 INSC 239
26

8
Hereinafter “SCJ Act”.
27

years, the period to be added should be 10 years,
inasmuch as same is the period prescribed by
Article 124 (3) (b) for a lawyer to be eligible to be
considered for appointment as a Judge of this
Court. Ordinarily, no member of the Bar would be
directly appointed as a Judge of this Court unless
he has put in at least about 30 years of practice.
This being so, giving credit of only 5 years seems to
be insufficient. The learned Attorney General may
kindly consider this aspect and take appropriate
action.”

28

d. P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and
Others
38. After about 12 years, a similar issue in respect of the
High Court Judges came up for consideration before this
P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of
Court in the case of
9
India and Others . The issue therein was with regard to
discrimination of the pension payable to the Judges who
were appointed from the service on the one hand and those
who were appointed directly from the Bar on the other hand.
The Judges who were elevated from the Bar were receiving far
less pension inasmuch as the length of service of such
Judges was ordinarily lesser. This Court, noticing the cases
of Kuldip Singh (supra) and Government of NCT of Delhi
and Others v. All India Young Lawyers Association
10
(Registered) and Another directed that for pensionary
benefits, 10 years of practice as an advocate would be added
as a qualifying service for Judges elevated from the Bar.
39. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 15 to 24 of the
judgment in the case of P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra),
which read thus:

9
(2014) 12 SCC 1 : 2014 INSC 229
10
(2009) 14 SCC 49 : 2009 INSC 85
29

“ 15. Explanation ( aa ) appended to Article 217(2) of
the Constitution of India envisages that:
“( aa ) in computing the period during
which a person has been an advocate of a
High Court, there shall be included any
period during which the person has held
judicial office or the office of a member of
a tribunal or any post, under the Union
or a State, requiring special knowledge of
law after he became an advocate;”
The Explanation thus treats the experience of an
advocate at the Bar and the period of judicial office
held by him on a par.
16. The Judges, who are appointed under Article
217(2)( a ) being members of the judicial service, even
if they serve as a Judge of the High Court for only
one or two years, get full pension benefits because
of the applicability of Rule 26-B or because of their
earlier entry into judicial service. However, the
Judges of the High Court, who are appointed from
the Bar do not get similar benefit of full pension,
which is arbitrary and discriminatory. Section 14 of
the HCJ Act and Clause 2 of Part I of the First
Schedule which governs the pension payable to
Judges gives rise to unequal consequences. The
existing scheme treats unequally the equals, which
is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
17. To remove the above discrimination, in the
Chief Justices' Conference held on 5-4-2013 and 6-
4-2013, it was, inter alia, resolved that, “for
pensionary benefits, ten years' practice as an
advocate be added as a qualifying service for Judges
elevated from the Bar”. [Resolution 18( viii )] It fully
supports the petitioner's submission.
18. The ratio of the decision cited by the respondent
in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal [1992
Supp (1) SCC 323 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 248 : (1992) 19
ATC 219 (three-Judge Bench, dt. 4-9-1991)] is not
applicable because the reliefs prayed therein were
30

entirely different and also because it is per incuriam
in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court of
equal strength in All India Judges Assn. (1) v. Union
of India [(1992) 1 SCC 119 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 9 :
(1992) 19 ATC 42 (three-Judge Bench, dt. 13-11-
1991)] and All India Judges Assn. (2) v. Union of
India [(1993) 4 SCC 288 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 148 :
(1993) 25 ATC 818 (three-Judge Bench, dt. 24-8-
1993)] wherein the requirement of independence of
the judiciary have been underlined as also two
decisions cited above i.e. Kuldip Singh [ Kuldip
Singh v. Union of India , (2002) 9 SCC 218 : 2002
SCC (L&S) 1063 (three-Judge Bench, dt. 29-4-
2002)] and All India Young Lawyers' Assn. [ Govt.
(NCT of Delhi) v. All India Young Lawyers' Assn. ,
(2009) 14 SCC 49 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 312 (three-
Judge Bench, dt. 29-1-2009)]
19. When persons who occupied the
constitutional office of Judge, High Court retire,
there should not be any discrimination with
regard to the fixation of their pension.
Irrespective of the source from where the Judges
are drawn, they must be paid the same pension
just as they have been paid same salaries and
allowances and perks as serving Judges. Only
practising advocates who have attained eminence
are invited to accept Judgeship of the High Court.
Because of the status of the office of High Court
Judge, the responsibilities and duties attached to
the office, hardly any advocate of distinction
declines the offer. Though it may be a great
financial sacrifice to a successful lawyer to accept
Judgeship, it is the desire to serve the society and
the high prestige attached to the office and the
respect the office commands that propel a
successful lawyer to accept Judgeship. The
experience and knowledge gained by a successful
lawyer at the Bar can never be considered to be less
important from any point of view vis-à-vis the
experience gained by a judicial officer. If the
service of a judicial officer is counted for
fixation of pension, there is no valid reason as to
31

why the experience at Bar cannot be treated as
equivalent for the same purpose .
20. The fixation of higher pension to the Judges
drawn from the subordinate judiciary who have
served for shorter period in contradistinction to
Judges drawn from the Bar who have served for
longer period with less pension is highly
discriminatory and breach of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The classification itself is
unreasonable without any legally acceptable
nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
21. The meagre pension for Judges drawn from the
Bar and served for less than 12 years on the Bench
adversely affects the image of the Judiciary. When
pensions are meagre because of the shorter service,
lawyers who attain distinction in the profession may
not, because of this anomaly, accept the office of
Judgeship. When capable lawyers do not show
inclination towards Judgeship, the quality of justice
declines.
22. In most of the States, the Judgeship of the High
Court is offered to advocates who are in the age
group of 50-55 years, since pre-eminence at the Bar
is achieved normally at that age. After remaining at
the top for a few years, a successful lawyer may
show inclination to accept Judgeship, since that is
the culmination of the desire and objective of most
of the lawyers. When persons holding constitutional
office retire from service, making a discrimination in
the fixation of their pensions depending upon the
source from which they were appointed is in breach
of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. One
rank one pension must be the norm in respect of
a constitutional office.
23. When a civil servant retires from service, the
family pension is fixed at a higher rate whereas in
the case of Judges of the High Court, it is fixed at a
lower rate. No discrimination can be made in the
matter of payment of family pension. The
expenditure for pension to the High Court Judges is
32

charged on the Consolidated Fund of India under
Article 112(3)( d )( iii ) of the Constitution.
24. In the light of what is discussed, we accept the
petitioners' claim and declare that for pensionary
benefits, ten years' practice as an advocate be added
as a qualifying service for Judges elevated from the
Bar. Further, in order to remove arbitrariness in the
matter of pension of the Judges of the High Courts
elevated from the Bar, the reliefs, as mentioned
above are to be reckoned from 1-4-2004, the date
on which Section 13-A was inserted by the High
Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and
Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2005 (46 of
2005). Requisite amendment be carried out in the
High Court Judges Rules, 1956 with regard to post-
retiral benefits as has been done in relation to the
retired Judges of the Supreme Court in terms of
amendment carried out by Rule 3-B of the Supreme
Court Judges Rules, 1959.”
[Emphasis supplied]

40. It is thus clear that this Court, in unequivocal terms,
has held that where persons who having occupied the
constitutional office of a Judge of the High Court retire, there
should not be any discrimination with regard to the fixation
of their pension. It has been held by this Court that
irrespective of the source from where the Judges of High
Court are drawn, they must be paid the same pension just as
they have been paid the same salaries and allowances and
perks as serving Judges. This Court held that the fixation of
higher pension to the Judges drawn from the district
33

judiciary who have served for a shorter period in
contradistinction to Judges drawn from the Bar who have
served for longer period with less pension is highly
discriminatory and a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It held that the classification itself was unreasonable without
any legally acceptable nexus with the object sought to be
achieved.
41. In the said case, in paragraphs 22 and 23, this Court
held that when persons holding the constitutional office
retire from service, making a discrimination in the fixation of
their pensions depending upon the source from which they
were appointed was in breach of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution. It emphasized that one rank one pension must
be the norm in respect of a constitutional office. It further
emphasized that no discrimination can be made in the
matter of payment of family pension. This Court, therefore,
accepted the claim of the petitioner therein and declared that
for pensionary benefits, ten years practice as an advocate be
added as a qualifying service for Judges elevated from the
Bar. It further directed that the reliefs granted by this Court
st
would be reckoned from 1 April 2004 i.e., the date on which
34

e. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice v. Justice
(Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others
43. Recently, in the case of Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg
(Raj Rani Jain) (supra), this Court was considering the case
of a retired Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The first respondent therein was initially appointed as a
th
Judicial Magistrate in the State of Haryana on 11 May
35

1981. She was promoted as an Additional District Judge on
th th
26 August 1997 and later, as a District Judge on 19 July
2010. In December 2013, she was recommended for
appointment as a Judge of the High Court. However, due to
the prolonged process of consideration of proposal for
appointment, before her appointment as a Judge of the High
st
Court, she retired as a District Judge on 31 July 2014.
Within two months, she assumed the office of the Judge of
th
the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 25 September 2014.
th
She retired from service on 4 July 2016 after attaining the
age of superannuation. Being aggrieved by the determination
of her pensionary benefits, she approached the Punjab and
Haryana High Court contending that her entire period of
th st
service from 11 May 1981 to 31 July 2014 as well as the
th th
service rendered by her from 25 September 2014 to 4 July
2016 be reckoned for pensionary and other retirement
th
benefits. Vide judgment and order dated 14 August 2018,
the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
held that the entire period of service rendered by her from
th th
25 September 2014 to 4 July 2016 as a Judge of the High
th
Court should be blended with her service from 11 May 1981
36

st
to 31 July 2014 as a Judge of the District Judiciary for the
purpose of computing her pension. Aggrieved thereby, the
Union of India filed an appeal by way of special leave before
this Court.
44. In the said case, it was sought to be contended on
behalf of the Union of India that on account of break-in
service for a period between the date of her retirement as a
st
District Judge (31 July 2014) and the date of assumption of
th
office of Judge of the High Court (25 September 2014),
which cannot be condoned, her pension had been rightly
calculated on the basis of the last drawn salary as a District
Judge. Specifically rejecting the said contention, this Court
observed thus:
“ 28. The Union has sought to urge that the pension
was correctly calculated on the basis of the last
drawn salary as a District Judge. To accept this
position would be contrary to established
precedent and would result in a clear
discrimination between a member of the Bar who
becomes a Judge of the High Court and a
member of the district judiciary who is
appointed as a Judge of the High Court.
x-x-x
30. Acceptance of the submission of the Union of
India would discriminate against Judges of the High
Court based on the source from which they are
drawn. A member of the Bar is entitled to the
addition of ten years of service by virtue of the
37

provisions of Section 14A. On the addition of the
years of service, their pensionary benefits would be
computed on the basis of the last drawn salary as a
Judge of the High Court. However, if the argument
of the Union of India is accepted, the pension of a
Judge who was a former District Judge would be
computed on the basis of their salary as a District
Judge. A similar principle, as applicable to
Judges appointed from the Bar, must be applied
for computing the pension of a member of the
district judiciary who is appointed to the High
Court. Any other interpretation would result in a
plain discrimination between the Judges of the
High Court based on the source from which they
have been drawn. Such an interpretation would do
disservice to the importance of the district judiciary
in contributing to the judiciary of the nation, and
would be contrary to the overall scheme and
intendment of Chapter III of the statute. It would go
against the anti-discriminatory principles stipulated
by this Court in so far as Judges drawn from
various sources are concerned”
[Emphasis supplied]

45. It can thus be seen that this Court, in unequivocal
terms, observed that a similar principle as provided under
Section 14A of the HCJ Act as applicable to the Judge
appointed from the Bar is also required to be applied for
computing the pension of a member of the District Judiciary
who was appointed to the High Court. This Court held that
any other interpretation would result in a plain
discrimination between the Judges of the High Court based
on the source from which they have been drawn.
38

f. Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and
Others
46. A decade after the decision of this Court in the case of
P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra), an almost converse
situation fell for consideration before this Court in the case of
Jagdish Chandra Gupta (supra).
47. In the said case, this Court was considering the case of
the petitioner therein who had practiced as an advocate for
about 14 years and 8 months before joining the Uttar
Pradesh Higher Judicial Service as an Additional District and
th
Sessions Judge on 8 September 1977. After serving the
District Judiciary for 18 years and 6 months, he was elevated
as a permanent Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
nd
Allahabad on 22 March 1996. He attained the age of
th
superannuation on 26 August 2002 after serving for 6
years, 5 months and 6 days as a Judge of the High Court.
The grievance of the petitioner therein was that the pension
payable to him was computed at the rate of lower than those
Judges who had been elevated to the High Court from the
th
Bar. This Court vide judgment and order dated 5 November
2024 held as under:
39

“ 10. The petitioner qualified for appointment as a
Judge of the High Court since he had held judicial
office for at least ten years within the meaning of
Article 217(2)(a). However, the petitioner was also a
member of the Bar for over fourteen years and eight
months prior to his appointment as a Judge of the
High Court.
11. In this backdrop, we are of the view that it
would be appropriate, particularly having regard to
the law which has been enunciated in the above
decision, to direct that the pensionary payments
due to the petitioner be recomputed after giving
him the benefit of an addition of ten years of
service. However, it is clarified that the
maximum basic pension which is payable to a
Judge of the High Court of Rs 13,50,000 per
annum shall continue to apply to the petitioner.
The petitioner retired from service on 26 August
2002. The difference in pensionary payments
payable to the petitioner shall be computed with

effect from the date of his retirement within a period
of three months and the arrears that are due and
payable in terms of the present order shall be paid
over by 31 March 2025.”
[Emphasis supplied]


48. It can thus be seen that this Court directed that the
pensionary payment due to the petitioner therein be
recomputed after giving him the benefit of an addition of 10
years of service. However, it was clarified that the maximum
basic pension which is payable to a Judge of the High Court
would not exceed Rs.13,50,000/- per annum.
40

g. Justice Shailendra Singh and Others v. Union of
India and Others
49. It will be relevant to note that vide judgment and order
of even date in the case of Justice Shailendra Singh
(supra), this Court was considering the case of the petitioners
th
therein who were appointed as District Judges on 15 April
2010. Seven of the petitioners, in one of writ petitions
therein, were appointed as Judges of the Patna High Court
th
on 4 June 2022 and one of them, in the second writ petition
therein, was appointed as a Judge of the said High Court on
nd
22 November 2023. After the petitioners therein were
appointed as Judges of the High Court, no steps were taken
by the authorities to open a General Provident Fund Account,
as a result of which, on their retirement, they would not
receive any terminal benefits pertaining to provident fund.
50. In the said case, it was sought to be urged on behalf of
Union of India that the true intendment of the proviso to
Section 20 of the HCJ Act was that a Judge who has held a
pensionable civil post under the State (in that case the
District Judiciary) would continue to subscribe to the
provident fund to which he was subscribing before his
appointment as a Judge of the High Court. It was urged that
41

51. This Court, after referring to the constitutional history
of Article 221 observed as to how in a very careful manner
the provisions pertaining to the salaries, allowances and
42

53. It can be seen that this Court held that it was not within
the contemplation of the Constitution that the payment of
salaries and the extension of other benefits, both during and
after service, should be left to the vagaries of determination
by individual States. This Court observed that the payment of
salaries and allowances to the sitting judges was charged to
the Consolidated Fund of every State in terms of Article
43

44

independence of judges and judicial
independence;
(v) The significance of provisions pertaining to the
guarantee of service conditions, while in
service and post retiral benefits for judges is
evidenced by the fact that the salaries and
allowances of sitting judges and the pensions
of retired judges are in the nature of a charge
on the Consolidated Fund of the State and the
Consolidated Fund of India respectively;
(vi) Any determination of the service benefits of
sitting judges of the High Court and the retiral
benefits which are payable to them including
pension, must take place on the basis of the
fundamental principle of non-discrimination
between judges of the High Court who
constitute one homogenous group; and
(vii) All judges of the High Court, irrespective of the
source from which they are drawn, are
entrusted with the same constitutional
function of discharging duties of adjudication
under the law. Once appointed as judges of the
High Court, their birthmarks stand obliterated
and any attempt to make a distinction between
judges, either for the purpose of determining
their conditions of service while in service or
any form of retiral dues would be
unconstitutional.”

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
55. On taking a conspectus of all the decisions of this Court
right from the case of M.L. Jain (I) (supra) to the case of
Justice Shailendra Singh (supra), the following position
emerges:
45

(i) A retiring Judge’s entire service as a Judge has to be
reckoned for the purpose of calculating his pension.
For that purpose, the last pay drawn by him has to
be the pay drawn by him as a Judge of the High
Court and not the pay that would have been drawn
by him as a District Judge, had he not been
appointed a High Court Judge [ M.L. Jain (I) (supra)];
(ii) The ceiling of any amount in clause (b) of Paragraph
2 of Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act is
not sustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India inasmuch as it creates discrimination. In any
case, the said ceiling as provided under clause (b) of
Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule to the
st
HCJ Act was effaced with effect from 1 January
1996 as directed by this Court in the case of M.L.
Jain (II) (supra). As such, the pension of retired
Judges has to be calculated on the basis of ceiling as
provided in proviso to Paragraph 2 of Part III of the
First Schedule to the HCJ Act [ M.L. Jain (II) (supra)];
(iii) There cannot be any discrimination with regard to
the fixation of the pension of a High Court Judge who
46

holds a constitutional office. Irrespective of the
source from where the Judges are drawn, they must
be paid the same pension just as they have been paid
the same salaries, allowances and perks as serving
Judges [ P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra)];
(iv) The services of a Judicial Officer who becomes a High
Court Judge from the judicial services so also the
experience of a Member of the Bar who becomes a
High Court Judge from the Bar is required to be
taken into consideration [ P. Ramakrishnam Raju
(supra) and Jagdish Chandra Gupta (supra)];
(v) Any classification on the basis of the High Court
Judges appointed from the Bar as against the High
Court Judges appointed from the services is
unreasonable and without any legally acceptable
nexus with the object sought to be achieved [ P.
Ramakrishnam Raju (supra)];
(vi) One rank one pension has to be the norm in respect
of a constitutional office [ P. Ramakrishnam Raju
(supra)];
47

(vii) No discrimination can be made in the matter of
payment of family pension [ P. Ramakrishnam Raju
(supra)];
(viii) That break-in service for a period between the date of
retirement as a District Judge and the date of
assuming the office as a High Court Judge cannot be
a ground for denial of pension on the basis of salary
drawn as a High Court Judge. The pension of even
such Judges has to be on the basis of the salary
drawn as High Court Judges [ Justice (Retd) Raj
Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) (supra)]; and
(ix) That a person who retires as a High Court Judge
even if he was appointed in the State Judiciary after
the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into effect
would still be entitled to the benefit of GPF under the
HCJ Act [ Justice Shailendra Singh (supra)].


a. Non-consideration of services rendered as District
Judges for payment of Full Pension
56. A perusal of all the aforementioned judgments would
reveal that a common thread running in all the judgments is
that there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of
48

payment of pension to the retired Judges on any basis. This
Court emphasised on the principle of one rank one pension
for a constitutional class i.e., the office of High Court Judge.
This Court found that, for ensuring independence of
judiciary, it is necessary that like the salary to which a Judge
is entitled to as a serving Judge, even after retirement he
should get the same terminal benefits as that of a High Court
Judge. Any discrimination on the ground of source of entry
as a High Court Judge has been frowned upon. It has been
emphasised that once a Judge enters into a constitutional
office of the High Court Judge, then the dignity of the
constitutional office demands that all Judges be paid the
same pension. In this respect, it will be relevant to note that
the ceiling of Rs.15,00,000/- per annum in the case of a
Chief Justice and Rs.13,50,000/- in the case of any other
Judge as provided in Paragraph 2 of Part I as well as Part III
of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act is identical. It is thus
clear that even such of the Judges who enter as High Court
Judge from the District Judiciary shall be entitled to the
maximum pension of Rs.13,50,000/- per annum irrespective
of whether they opt for Part I of the First Schedule to the HCJ
49

Act or not. As held by this Court in the case of M.L. Jain (II),
any restriction imposed in any of the clauses of Paragraph 2
of Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act which would
result in reducing the pension than the one provided in
Paragraph 2 of both Part I and Part III of the First Schedule
to the HCJ Act, would be patently discriminatory and
therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
57. There is another analogy to substantiate the said
conclusion. Section 13A of the HCJ Act provides that the
salary of Rs.2,25,000/- is to be paid to every High Court
Judge except the Chief Justice of the High Court. If this
amount is multiplied by 12, it will come to an annual amount
of Rs.27,00,000/-. It appears that, taking into consideration
this figure, the basic amount of pension has been kept at
50% of the said amount which comes to Rs.13,50,000/-. We
see no reason as to why the said amount shall not apply as a
basic pension to all retired Judges of High Courts.
58. We say so for the reason also because if such a
harmonious interpretation of the provisions of HCJ Act is not
adopted, it will lead to an anomalous situation. For example,
Section 17A of the HCJ Act entitles the family of a Judge, on
50

his/her death before or after the retirement, for family
pension at the rate of 50% of his salary from the date
following the death of the Judge. Such a family pension
would be paid for a period of 7 years or for a period up to the
date on which the Judge would have attained the age of 65
years had he/she survived, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, it
is reduced to 30%. It is pertinent to note that the tenure of
the Judge is not relevant for entitlement of family pension
upon his death. In a hypothetical situation, let’s say if a
Judge dies on the next day of his joining the office, his family
would be entitled to full family pension in accordance with
Section 17A of the HCJ Act. However, if the contention that
pension is linked to tenure is accepted, then a Judge who
does not complete the requisite period, would be denied the
full pension. In our view, such a situation would lead to an
absolute absurdity.
59. We are, therefore, of the considered view that all retired
Judges would be entitled to a pension calculated on the basic
pension of Rs.13,50,000/- per annum as provided under
Paragraph 2 of Part I and Paragraph 2 of Part III of the First
Schedule to the HCJ Act. In our considered view, only such
51

an interpretation would remove any arbitrariness, inequality
and discrimination and bring in parity in the matter of
pension payable to all the retired Judges.
b. Denial of Full Pension owing to break-in-service
60. The next issue outlined by us was whether full pension
can be denied to a Judge of the High Court on the ground
that there is a break in service between the date of retirement
as a District Judge and the date of assuming office as a
Judge of the High Court.
61. It may not be necessary for us to decide the said issue
inasmuch as in the case of Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg
(Raj Rani Jain) (supra), this Court had an occasion to
consider the said issue. A Bench of three learned Judges of
this Court had held that the break-in service of the retired
Judge of the High Court could not be taken into
consideration for denial of her pension and had directed her
to be paid pension by taking into consideration the basic
pension of Rs.13,50,000/- per annum.
52

c. Denial of Full Pension to Retired High Court Judges
who enter the State Judiciary after NPS came into
effect
62. The next issue is with regard to whether the retired
Judges of the High Court who enter the State Judiciary after
the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into effect would be
entitled to receive pension as Judges of the High Court or
not.
63. In this respect, it is to be noted that, when a Judge of
the High Court is in office irrespective of his/her source of
entry, he/she is entitled to the same salary and the same
perquisites. 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 of India. When an
equal treatment is given to all the Judges of the High Courts
when 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, in our considered
view, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
53

64. We are of the considered view that permitting different
States to have different terminal benefits would again lead to
discrimination. As held by this Court in the case of Justice
Shailendra Singh
(supra), Article 216 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 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. We, therefore, hold
that all the retired Judges irrespective of the date on which
they were appointed would be entitled to receive the full
pension at the rate of Rs.13,50,000/- as basic pension per
annum as provided in Paragraph 2 of Part I of First Schedule
and Paragraph 2 of Part III of First Schedule.

65. A question that would then arise is as to how the
amount which has been contributed by such of the Judges
and the State respectively under the New Pension Scheme
(NPS) is to be treated. We find that, it will be equitable to
54

direct the States to refund the amount contributed by such
Judges along with the dividend accrued thereon. Insofar as
the contribution made by the State along with the dividend
accrued thereon is concerned, it should be credited to the
account of the State.
d. Denial of Full Pension to Judges who retired as
Additional Judges
66. The next issue that is required to be considered is as to
whether the Judges of the High Court who have retired as
Additional Judges would be required to be paid full pension
or not.

67. We find that, in order to consider that aspect, it will be
appropriate to consider the definition of a “Judge” as defined
in clause (g) of Section 2 of the HCJ Act which has been
reproduced hereinabove. As discussed above, the perusal of
the definition would show that 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. In view of this, we find that, to bring out any artificial
discrimination between a Permanent Judge and an
Additional Judge in the term “Judge” as defined in Section 14
55

of the HCJ Act would be doing violence to the definition of a
“Judge” as defined in clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 2
of the HCJ Act.
68.
The Judges of the High Court are treated similarly for
their pay and allowances and other service conditions
irrespective of the source from which they are elevated; from
the District Judiciary or the Bar. There is also no distinction
insofar as an Additional Judge and Permanent Judge is
concerned; the status being determined by the fortuitous
circumstances of the vacancies available.

69. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that even
the retired Judges who have retired as Additional Judges will
be entitled to the same amount of basic pension i.e.,
Rs.13,50,000/- per annum.
e. Denial of Family Pension and Gratuity to
widows/family members of Additional Judges of
High Court
70. The next issue before us is with regard to denial of
family pension and gratuity to the widow/family members of
Additional Judges.
56

71. As discussed by us hereinabove, the definition of
“Judge” includes a Chief Justice, an acting Chief Justice, an
Additional Judge and an acting Judge. Therefore, the denial
of family pension merely on the ground that a Judge died in
harness as an Additional Judge, in our view, is patently
arbitrary. We therefore hold that the widow/family members
of even Additional Judges would be entitled to family pension
in accordance with Section 17A of the HCJ Act.
72. Insofar as the denial of gratuity to the widow/family
members of a Judge who died in harness is concerned, we
are again of the considered view that the same is totally
unsustainable. The definition of pension as provided in
clause (gg) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the HCJ Act
would reveal that the pension, apart from being a pension of
any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of a Judge, also
includes any gratuity or “other sum or sums so payable by
way of death or retirement benefits” . A harmonious
construction of Section 14A with sub-section (3) of Section
17A of the HCJ Act and the judgments of this Court in the
cases of P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra) and Jagdish
Chandra Gupta (supra) would lead to the conclusion that a
57

period of 10 years’ has to be added to the services rendered
by a Service Judge and further experience of a Bar Judge
insofar as applicability of grant of pension is concerned. By
the same analogy, a period of 10 years would be required to
be added to clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 17A of the
HCJ Act. We, therefore, hold that the gratuity payable on
death/retirement of a Judge will have to be calculated after
adding the period of 10 years to the period as provided in
clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 17A of the HCJ Act etc.
f. Denial of Provident Fund as payable under the HCJ
Act

73. The last issue pertains to payment of Provident Fund
and other benefits on the retirement of the Judges of the
High Court.
74. This issue is covered by a judgment of this Court in the
case of Justice Shailendra Singh (supra). However, to avoid
any further ambiguity, we deem it proper to clarify that all
the allowances payable to a retired Judge on his retirement
as a Judge of the High Court irrespective of the mode of entry
as High Court Judge will have to be paid in accordance with
the provisions of the HCJ Act. Needless to state that the
58

same would include leave encashment in accordance with
Section 4A of the HCJ Act, commutation of pensions in
accordance with Section 19 of the HCJ Act and Provident
Fund under Section 20 of the HCJ Act, etc.
75. Though in view of the aforesaid discussions, it is not
necessary to clarify, however, in order to avoid any ambiguity
in future, we find that insofar as the retired Chief Justices of
the High Courts are concerned, they will be entitled to full
pension of Rs.15,00,000/- per annum and insofar as the
retired Judges of the High Courts are concerned, they will be
entitled to full pension of Rs.13,50,000/- per annum.
V. CONCLUSION
76. In the result, the present writ petitions are disposed of
with the following directions:
(i) The Union of India shall pay the full pension of
Rs.15,00,000/- per annum to a retired Chief
Justice of the High Court;
(ii) The Union of India shall pay the full pension of
Rs.13,50,000/- per annum to a retired Judge of
59

the High Court, other than a retired Chief Justice
of the High Court;
(iii) A retired Judge of the High Court shall also
include such of the retired Judges of a High Court
who have retired as Additional Judge of the High
Court;
(iv) We direct that the Union of India shall 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 and all of them shall be paid full pension as
aforesaid;
(v) In the case of a retired Judge of the High Court
who has previously served in the District
Judiciary, the Union of India shall pay full pension
irrespective of any break-in-service between the
date on which he/she retired as a Judge of the
60

District Judiciary and the date on which he/she
assumed charge as a Judge of the High Court;
(vi) In the case of a retired Judge of the High Court
who has previously served in the District Judiciary
and who entered into the District Judiciary after
the coming into force of the Contributory Pension
Scheme or New Pension Scheme (NPS), the Union
of India shall pay the full pension . Insofar as
his/her contribution under the NPS is concerned,
we direct the States to forthwith refund the entire
amount contributed by such of the retired Judges
of the High Court back to them along with the
dividend, if any , accrued thereon. However, the
contributions made by the State Governments
shall be retained by the respective States along
with the dividend, if any , accrued thereon;
(vii) The Union of India shall pay family pension to the
widow or family members of a Judge of the High
Court who dies in harness irrespective of whether
such a Judge of the High Court was a Permanent
61

Judge of the High Court or Additional Judge of the
High Court;
(viii) The Union of India shall pay gratuity to the widow
or family members of a Judge of the High Court
who dies in harness by adding 10 years period to
the period of service undergone by the said Judge
irrespective of whether the minimum qualifying
service as provided under clause (i) of sub-section
(3) of Section 17A of HCJ Act had been completed
or not; and

(ix) The Union of India shall pay all allowances
payable to a retired Judge of a High Court in
accordance with the provisions of the HCJ Act and
the same shall include Leave Encashment in
accordance with Section 4A of HCJ Act,
Commutation of Pensions in accordance with
Section 19, Provident Fund under Section 20 of
the HCJ Act, etc.
77. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
62

78. We place on record our appreciation for all the learned
Senior Counsel/learned counsel appearing in the matter. We
also place on record our deep appreciation for the laborious
pains taken by Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel
ably assisted by Ms. Kanti, Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Raji
Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel, in taking
strenuous efforts in collating all the material and assisting
this Court as an Amicus Curiae . We must also place on
record our sincere appreciation for Shri R. Venkatramani,
learned Attorney General for India appearing on behalf of the

Union of India who has presented the case in an objective
and dispassionate manner in keeping with the traditions of
his high office.

..............................CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)


............................................J
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)


…..............................J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 19, 2025.
63