The Bombay High Court has moved the Supreme Court against its own order in a case related to the pension granted to Justice (Retd.) Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande..The respondent was a judge at the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court for over sixteen years. He was then appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2008, for a tenure of two years. His tenure was extended for another one year through a notification..In April 2011, while he was occupying the post of Additional Judge, Deshpande J was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal for three years till April 2014..During his tenure as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, Deshpande J attained the age of sixty, but continued in the position in line with the notification of his appointment. This gave rise to the dispute regarding the computation of his pension..The Administrative Judges Committee that had considered the matter concluded that Deshpande J had attained superannuation as a District Judge..Subsequently, a letter was sent by the respondent to the Department of Justice of the Union Law Ministry to look into this issue. This matter was then referred to the Bombay High Court..A two-member committee set up by the Bombay High Court had arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of pension for District Judges would be applicable to the respondent..Aggrieved by this decision of the Bombay High Court’s administrative side, the respondent filed a petition on the judicial side of the High Court, which granted him relief. The High Court has now come before the Supreme Court in appeal of this decision..Today, after hearing the submissions, Justice AK Sikri said that the question of law here is whether the Deshpande J should be treated as a retired judge of the High Court or the District Court, and how his pension ought to be fixed..The Court then issued notice to the state and central agencies made parties in the matter, and sought a reply from them within two weeks.
The Bombay High Court has moved the Supreme Court against its own order in a case related to the pension granted to Justice (Retd.) Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande..The respondent was a judge at the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court for over sixteen years. He was then appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2008, for a tenure of two years. His tenure was extended for another one year through a notification..In April 2011, while he was occupying the post of Additional Judge, Deshpande J was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal for three years till April 2014..During his tenure as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, Deshpande J attained the age of sixty, but continued in the position in line with the notification of his appointment. This gave rise to the dispute regarding the computation of his pension..The Administrative Judges Committee that had considered the matter concluded that Deshpande J had attained superannuation as a District Judge..Subsequently, a letter was sent by the respondent to the Department of Justice of the Union Law Ministry to look into this issue. This matter was then referred to the Bombay High Court..A two-member committee set up by the Bombay High Court had arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of pension for District Judges would be applicable to the respondent..Aggrieved by this decision of the Bombay High Court’s administrative side, the respondent filed a petition on the judicial side of the High Court, which granted him relief. The High Court has now come before the Supreme Court in appeal of this decision..Today, after hearing the submissions, Justice AK Sikri said that the question of law here is whether the Deshpande J should be treated as a retired judge of the High Court or the District Court, and how his pension ought to be fixed..The Court then issued notice to the state and central agencies made parties in the matter, and sought a reply from them within two weeks.