Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the purpose of creating dignified conditions of existence for judges both during their tenure and thereafter has a vital element of public interest as both courts and the judges are important components of the rule of law. 

"Independence of the judiciary is hence a vital doctrine which is recognised in the constitutional scheme. The payment of salaries and dignified pensions serves precisely that purpose," a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.

The court rejected the Union government's contention which emphasised upon the requirement of completing twelve years of service for pension to judges under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954, enacted by Parliament “to regulate salaries and certain conditions of service of the judges of the High Court”. 

"Pensionary payments to Judges constitute a vital element in the independence of the judiciary. As a consequence of long years of judicial office, judges on demitting office do not necessarily have the options which are open to members from other services. The reason why the State assumes the obligation to pay pension to Judges is to ensure that the protection of the benefits which are available after retirement would ensure their ability to discharge their duties without 'fear or favour' during the years of judgeship," the bench said.

The Union government challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order to blend service rendered by a retired high court judge from May 11, 1981 to July 31, 2014 in the district court as well as from September 25, 2014 to July 04, 2016 as a high court judge. 

The bench, however, said that the submission by the Centre clearly missed the plain consequence of the Explanation to Section 14. 

Upon electing to receive a pension under Part III of the First Schedule, the first respondent was entitled to have the years of service which were rendered by her as a judge of the high court cumulated with the years of service rendered as a member of the district judiciary, the bench added.

The court said that any interpretation that is placed on the provisions of the Act must comport with the object and purpose underlying the enactment of the provision. 

Maintaining that the Union government failed to establish such a disentitlement, the bench said, "Further, the break in service was attributable to the time taken in processing the recommendation made in her favour. In any case, it was not attributable to anything that the first respondent had done, and it could not be used to prejudice her by rendering her service as a Judge of the High Court inconsequential to the calculation of pension".

The Union government also contended 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," the bench said.

The court also declared that the 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," the bench said.

The court declared that the break in the concerned judge's service must necessarily have no adverse implications in computing her pension which should be done on the basis of her last drawn salary as a judge of the high court. 

Case Title: Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice Vs Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others