Attempt To Make Distinction Between HC Judges For Determining Their Conditions Of Service Or Any Form Of Retiral Dues Is Unconstitutional: SC

The Supreme Court held that attempt to make a distinction between Judges either for the purpose of determining their conditions of service while in service or any form of retiral dues is unconstitutional.

The Court held thus in two Writ Petitions preferred by eight Judges of the Patna High Court who were aggrieved by a communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Justice of the Union Ministry of Law and Justice.

The three-Judge Bench comprising the then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “All judges of the High Court, irrespective of the source from which they are drawn, are entrusted with the same constitutional function of discharging duties of adjudication under the law. Once appointed as judges of the High Court, their birthmarks stand obliterated and any attempt to make a distinction between judges, either for the purpose of determining their conditions of service while in service or any form of retiral dues would be unconstitutional.”

Advocate K. Parameshwar was the Amicus Curiae. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi represented the Petitioners while Attorney General R. Venkataramani represented the Respondents.

In this case, the Petitioners were appointed as District Judges in 2010 and seven of them in the first of the two Petitions were appointed as Judges of the Patna High Court in June 2022. Whereas, the sole Petitioner in the second Petition was appointed as a Judge of that High Court in November 2023. On appointment as Judges of the High Court, their salaries and conditions of service were to be governed by the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

After the petitioners were appointed as judges of the High Court, no steps were taken by the authorities to open a General Provident Fund account as a consequence of which, on their retirement, they did not receive any terminal benefit pertaining to the Provident Fund. The scope of the controversy turns on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act.

The Supreme Court in the above regard, emphasised, “The High Courts are constitutional institutions and upon appointment as judges of the High Court, all judges, irrespective of the source from which they are drawn, partake the character of holders of constitutional offices in equal measure.”

The Court further noted that, neither Article 221(1) of the Constitution which empowers Parliament to determine the salaries of the Judges of the High Court nor Article 221(2) which empowers Parliament to determine the allowances and rights in respect of the leave of absence and pension permits discrimination between judges of the High Court based on the source from which they are drawn.

“Article 217 of the Constitution specifies distinct sources of recruitment for judges of the High Court from the district judiciary or, as the case may be, the Bar. But once appointed to the High Court, all judges form one homogenous class of constitutional office holders”, it added.

The Court remarked that, judicial independence is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and there is an intrinsic relationship between financial independence of judges and judicial independence.

“The significance of provisions pertaining to the guarantee of service conditions, while in service and post retiral benefits for judges is evidenced by the fact that the salaries and allowances of sitting judges and the pensions of retired judges are in the nature of a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the State and the Consolidated Fund of India respectively”, it also observed.

The Court held that, any determination of the service benefits of sitting judges of the High Court and the retiral benefits which are payable to them including pension, must take place on the basis of the fundamental principle of non-discrimination between judges of the High Court who constitute one homogenous group.

Accordingly, the Apex Court directed to return the amounts lying to the credit of the Petitioners in the New Pension Scheme within four weeks.

Cause Title- Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 862)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, AORs Vikrant Singh Bais, Prem Prakash, and Advocate Deepali Nanda.

Respondents: Attorney General R. Venkataramani, ASG K.M. Nataraj, AORs Arvind Kumar Sharma, Samir Ali Khan, Tanmaya Agarwal, Sudarshan Lamba, Gautam Narayan, Advocates Vatsal Joshi, Akshit Pradhan, Shlok Chandra, Raghav Sharma, Raman Yadav, Kartikay Aggarwal, Chitvan Singhal, Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Pranjal Sharma, Abhimanyu Jhamba, Wrick Chatterjee, Aditi Agarwal, Vatsal Joshi, Akshit Pradhan, Shlok Cahndra, Raghav Sharma, Sunita Sharma, Anmol Chandan, Annirudh Sharma, Ishaan Sharma, Sarthak Karol, Padmesh Mishra, Chitvan Singhal, Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Raman Yadav, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Kartikay Aggarwal, Asmita Singh, Tushar Nair, Anirudh Anand, and Punishk Handa.

Click here to read/download the Judgment