After the much hue and cry for One Rank One Pension in the Indian Army and other armed forces, for the ex-servicemen, the Government of India has planned to bring an amendment to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. This particular amendment is to bring in the principle of One Rank One Pension (OROP) principle for pension of judges.
The present system of calculating pension for High Court Judges is a bit different for the judges who have been elevated from the bar and those who have been elevated from the bench. Rule to calculate the pension of any High Court Judge is that, the previous service in the state judiciary services is counted and according to that previous service, the pension of that particular judge is calculated. So, as a result, those judges who have been elevated to the High Court from the bar are at a loss as they are not having any service as compared to the judges who have been elevated from the bench, as their years of service in the state judicial services (District & Sessions Court) is calculated. This discrepancy in the calculation of pension for the retired High Court Judges elevated from the bar and the bench is being spoken about widely by the High Court judges and the government by the present amendment wants to bridge this gap of pension calculation.
“One Rank, One Pension” rule in the case of judges is that for the calculation of pension of the retired High Court Judges for those who have been elevated from the bar, their years of service in the bar, i.e. their years of practice as a lawyer, would also be counted for the purposes of pension calculation as is the method of calculation of pension of retired High Court judges for whom years of service in the State judicial services (District & Sessions Court) is counted for pension calculation. This would bring the pension of the judges elevated from the bar and the bench at par.
Presently, what happens is that when a Judge is elevated to the High Court from the bench and he serves as a High Court judge for let’s say 2 years, and on the other hand a lawyer is elevated to become a High Court judge and he is in his office for 10 years till retirement, the pension of the judge who is elevated from the bench would be more than that of the judge who was elevated from the bar, as in the case of the former, his service in the State Judiciary Services would be counted and in the case of the latter, the practice of the judge in the bar will not be counted and so he will be at a loss.
This amendment seems to be in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 1 : AIR 2014 SC 1619, in which a three judge bench of the Supreme Court of India observed as under:
“19. When persons who occupied the Constitutional Office of Judge, High Court retire, there should not be any discrimination with regard to the fixation of their pension. Irrespective of the source from where the Judges are drawn, they must be paid the same pension just as they have been paid same salaries and allowances and perks as serving Judges. Only practicing Advocates who have attained eminence are invited to accept Judgeship of the High Court. Because of the status of the office of High Court Judge, the responsibilities and duties attached to the office, hardly any advocate of distinction declines the offer. Though it may be a great financial sacrifice to a successful lawyer to accept Judgeship, it is the desire to serve the society and the high prestige attached to the office and the respect the office commands that propel a successful lawyer to accept Judgeship. The experience and knowledge gained by a successful lawyer at the Bar can never be considered to be less important from any point of view vis-a-vis the experience gained by a judicial officer. If the service of a judicial officer is counted for fixation of pension, there is no valid reason as to why the experience at Bar cannot be treated as equivalent for the same purpose.
20. 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. The classification itself is unreasonable without any legally acceptable nexus with the object sought to be achieved.”
The petitioners had contended that such differentiation is breach of article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India. Chief Justice P Sathasivam even observed that one rank one pension should be the norm of a constitutional office.
Also, in the case of Kuldip Singh vs. Union of India, (2002) 9 SCC 218, the same issue was raised up when Justice Kuldip Singh was not given the benefit of pension and as a consequence he had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India.
This proposed amendment for introducing one rank one pension for high court judges is expected to be made in the monsoon session of the parliament beginning 21 July.
Also read our articles on One Rank One Pension for the armed forces here and here.
