“One Rank, One Pension” rules Supreme Court; ’10 years practice’ qualifying service for computation of pension of HC judges elevated from Bar

The Supreme Court in a significant judgment today held that lower pension for High Court judges drawn from the Bar in contradistinction to judges drawn from the lower judiciary violates Article 14 of the Constitution..A three judge Bench comprising Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana held that for the purpose of determining pensionary benefits, ten years’ practice as an advocate should be added as a qualifying service for Judges elevated from the Bar..The petition was filed by former High Court judges and Association of the Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts elevated from the Bar (Petitioners). Senior Advocates MN Rao, PP Rao, PH Parekh, SK Dubey, MR Calla, Fakhruddin, CM Nayar, SK Agarwal and AK Shrivastava appeared for the Petitioners. Additional Solicitor General Rakesh Khanna and Senior Advocate JS Attri represented the Central government..The petitioners had prayed that the number of years practiced as an advocate should be taken into account and be added to the service as a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of determining the maximum pension permissible under Part-I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (HCJ Act)..It was further submitted that Judges elevated from the State Judicial Service got higher pension even if they had worked as a Judge of the High Court for two or three years because their entire service was added to their service as a Judge of the High Court for computing pension. This, the Petitioners had contended, was a breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and had, therefore, sought that “one rank, one pension” must be the norm in respect of a constitutional office. It was also prayed that the retired Judges of the High Courts should also be given enhanced allowance for domestic help/peon/driver, telephone expenses and other secretarial assistance..The Court, in its 19 page judgment, held that,.“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.”.Holding that the meagre pension was one of the reasons for lawyers refusing to accept judgeship, the Court went on to hold that,.“When persons holding constitutional office retire from service, making 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……… 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.”.The Court also directed State governments to frame schemes providing for post retirement benefits to High Court judges..Read the judgment below.