Beneficial pension rules and anti-discrimination principles supported gratuity, ad hoc relief, and revised pension benefits for retired judges.

Beneficial pension and retirement-benefit rules were applied to High Court Judges because Rule 2 imported the service regime for an Indian Administrative Service officer holding Secretary rank, and the absence of an express gratuity clause in the parent enactment did not exclude retirement gratuity; the accrued entitlement of judges who had already retired was therefore upheld. Retrospective withdrawal of ad hoc relief was impermissible where the benefit had been continued for some retirees but withheld from others without justification, so the discontinuance was set aside and consequential protection against recovery or adjustment followed. The minimum pension threshold was also read down to avoid arbitrariness, preserving validity of the scheme and supporting enhanced pension difference.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether High Court Judges who retired before 1 October 1974 were entitled to retirement gratuity under Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956 read with the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958; (ii) whether ad hoc relief granted under the 1958 Rules could be withdrawn retrospectively and denied to some retired Judges while continuing for others; (iii) whether the minimum pension condition in paragraph 2 of Part I of the First Schedule, as amended, required reading down for Judges with less than seven years' service.

Issue (i): whether High Court Judges who retired before 1 October 1974 were entitled to retirement gratuity under Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956 read with the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958

Analysis: Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956 made applicable, in matters not expressly provided for in the parent Act, the rules governing an Indian Administrative Service officer holding the rank of Secretary to the State Government. The 1958 Rules expressly provided for death-cum-retirement gratuity on retirement. The absence of an express gratuity provision in the original service enactment did not exclude the imported rule. The later 1976 amendment did not defeat the accrued entitlement of Judges who had already retired before the cut-off date, and the prior Supreme Court observations did not finally conclude the gratuity question against them.

Conclusion: the petitioners were entitled to retirement gratuity, and the claim succeeded in their favour.

Issue (ii): whether ad hoc relief granted under the 1958 Rules could be withdrawn retrospectively and denied to some retired Judges while continuing for others

Analysis: The ad hoc relief was treated as relief against rise in cost of living under Rule 17(2) of the 1958 Rules, separate from pension and payable over and above pensionary benefits. The respondents continued the benefit to some petitioners but withheld it from others without justification. Retrospective discontinuance by the impugned letter was held impermissible, and the selective denial was found discriminatory. The withholding of the relief also attracted interest and consequential restraint against recovery or adjustment.

Conclusion: the impugned discontinuance was quashed and the petitioners were held entitled to ad hoc relief with consequential protection against recovery or adjustment.

Issue (iii): whether the minimum pension condition in paragraph 2 of Part I of the First Schedule, as amended, required reading down for Judges with less than seven years' service

Analysis: The minimum pension formula created an arbitrary disadvantage for Judges who had served for more than four years but less than seven years. Following the earlier reasoning on the same pension scheme, the provision was saved by reading the qualifying words in a manner that preserved validity. The later amendment was also taken into account, and the same interpretive approach was applied to maintain the scheme's constitutionality.

Conclusion: the qualifying phrase was read down so that the threshold operated as more than four years' service, and petitioners 8 and 9 were entitled to the enhanced pension difference.

Final Conclusion: the writ petition was substantially allowed, with gratuity, ad hoc relief, interest, and revised pensionary benefits granted to the extent declared, and the impugned withdrawal of relief was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: where service rules expressly import a beneficial pensionary or retirement-benefit scheme in the absence of an express exclusion, the imported rule governs; retrospective withdrawal of a granted service benefit cannot be used to create unequal treatment among similarly situated retirees, and an arbitrary pension threshold may be read down to preserve the validity of the scheme.

---