2014 (3) TMI 1085 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court Bar Judges entitled to extended pension benefits, Supreme Court rules, addressing discrimination and urging uniformity.

P. Ramakrishnam Raju Versus Union of India & Ors.

P. Ramakrishnam Raju Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2014 AIR (SC) 1619, 2014 (4) SCR 562, 2014 (12) SCC 1, 2014 (5) JT 102, 2014 (4) SCALE 329 Issues Involved:1. Whether High Court Judges appointed from the Bar under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution of India are entitled to an addition of 10 years to their service for pension purposes.2. Discrimination in pension benefits between Judges appointed from the Bar and those from the Judicial Service.3. Post-retirement benefits for retired High Court Judges.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of 10 Years to Service for Pension Purposes:The primary question was whether High Court Judges appointed from the Bar are entitled to an addition of 10 years to their service for pension purposes. The petitioners, former Judges of various High Courts and the Association of Retired Judges, argued that the years practiced as an advocate should be added to their service as a Judge for determining the maximum pension permissible. They contended that this was necessary to address the disparity in pension benefits between Judges elevated from the Bar and those from the State Judicial Service, who often receive full pension even with only 2 or 3 years of service as a High Court Judge.2. Discrimination in Pension Benefits:The petitioners argued that the current system, which does not account for the years practiced as an advocate, results in unequal treatment of Judges elevated from the Bar compared to those from the Judicial Service. This, they claimed, breaches Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution provides for a three-tier judicial system and allows for the appointment of Judges from the Bar at all levels. However, the existing pension scheme treats unequally those who are otherwise equals, which is violative of Articles 14 and 21.3. Post-retirement Benefits:The petitioners also sought enhanced allowances for domestic help, telephone expenses, and other secretarial assistance for retired High Court Judges. The Court referred to the Chief Justices' Conference held on April 5 and 6, 2013, which resolved that ten years of practice as an advocate should be added as qualifying service for Judges elevated from the Bar. The Court found that the ratio of the decision in Union of India vs. Devki Nandan Agarwal was not applicable and emphasized that the experience and knowledge gained by a successful lawyer at the Bar should be considered equivalent to the experience gained by a judicial officer.Separate Judgment on Post-retirement Benefits:In a separate judgment, the Court addressed the appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the order of the High Court of Rajasthan, which directed the State Government to pay a monthly sum to retired Chief Justices and Judges for domestic help, telephone expenses, and secretarial assistance. The Court noted that most States had extended various post-retiral benefits to retired Judges and urged the remaining States to formulate similar schemes within six months.Conclusion:The Supreme Court accepted the petitioners' claim, declaring that for pensionary benefits, ten years of practice as an advocate should be added as qualifying service for Judges elevated from the Bar. This change was to be reckoned from April 1, 2004. The Court also urged States to adopt schemes for post-retirement benefits similar to those already implemented in some States, ensuring uniformity and fairness in the treatment of retired Judges.