Supreme Court seeks Central government response on Bombay High Court plea challenging its own order on grant of pension to its former judge

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Central government on an appeal by the Bombay High Court challenging its own order granting pension to former additional judge Justice Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande [High Court of Judicature of Bombay and ors vs Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande]. .A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi issued the notice in the High Court's plea challenging a judgment authored by current Supreme Court Justice BR Gavai who was then a judge of the Bombay High Court. "The Union will be required, can take a call to compute the pension on what happens if a judge has to take on a non-pensionable post," the Court said. .Justice Deshpande was a judge at the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court for over sixteen years. He was then appointed 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, Justice Deshpande was appointed Presiding Officer of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal for three years.During his tenure as the Presiding Officer, he 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 Justice Deshpande 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. The matter was then referred to the Bombay High Court.A two-member committee set up by the Bombay High Court then arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of pension for District Judges would be applicable to the respondent.Aggrieved by this decision by the High Court’s administrative side, Justice Deshpande filed a petition on the judicial side, which granted him relief. This prompted the administrative side of the High Court to file the present appeal before the top court. At the last hearing of the matter by the Supreme Court back in July 2018, Justice AK Sikri had issued notice to the State and central agencies.The top court had said that the question of law here to be considered was whether the the former judge should be treated as a retired judge of the High Court or the District Court, and how his pension ought to be fixed..During today's hearing, the apex court asked why the High Court had filed the appeal when it was the Central government that would be aggrieved by the burden of payment of pension.Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the judge, submitted that the administrative side of the High Court had held that his client was to be repatriated to the city civil court in terms of his pension dues. Counsel for the High Court reiterated that the tribunal assignment was the judge's original cadre in the scheme of things, and the administrative side had thrice come to the conclusion before it was overturned. To this Justice Rastogi responded, "Judges are not civil servants. Once you become a judge, whether additional or permanent, you are distinct from the [earlier] cadre." .Advocate Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh appeared for the High Court. , Advocates Abhijeet Deshmukh and Udita Singh also appeared for the former judge. [Read order]