A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case addresses the impact of a gap in service between a District Judge’s retirement and subsequent High Court appointment on pensionary benefits under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The Supreme Court held that a break in service does not adversely affect pension calculations when such an appointment stems from recommendations made during judicial tenure. Harmonizing sections 14 and 15 of the Act, the Court resolved a conflict concerning pension rights of judges drawn from different sources. It emphasized parity between District Judiciary Judges and Bar members elevated to High Court judgeship, applying an anti-discriminatory principle to maintain judicial independence and equity.

Keywords: Pensionary rights, judicial independence, break in service, anti-discrimination, High Court Judges Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
15 March 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI; J.B. Pardiwala; Manoj Misra, JJ.

vi) Author:
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

vii) Citation:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 848; 2024 INSC 219

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: Sections 14, 15, 14A
• Constitution of India: Articles 217, 221

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None explicitly mentioned

x) Case is Related to:
Constitutional Law, Service Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This appeal arose from the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment blending the service of a former District Judge, later elevated to the High Court, to calculate her pension. The Union of India opposed this approach, citing a break in service that purportedly disqualified such consideration. At issue was the interpretation of Section 15 of the High Court Judges Act and whether parity principles under Article 14 of the Constitution mandated equal pension treatment for judges drawn from different career paths.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg served as a Judicial Magistrate from 1981 and subsequently as a District Judge until 31 July 2014.
• On 25 September 2014, she was appointed a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, following a break of 54 days.
• She retired from the High Court on 4 July 2016.
• The Union of India determined her pension based on her last drawn salary as a District Judge, ignoring her tenure in the High Court.
• She challenged this decision, asserting the combined calculation of her District Judiciary and High Court service for pension.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the break in service invalidated the blending of service for pension calculation.
2. Whether Section 14 or Section 15 of the High Court Judges Act governed the respondent’s pension rights.
3. Whether differential treatment of judges appointed from the Bar and judiciary violated Article 14.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The Union contended that the respondent had not completed the requisite 12 years of service under Section 14, making her ineligible for a High Court Judge’s pension.
2. Section 15 did not apply due to the break in service between her District Judge retirement and High Court appointment.
3. Pension should be calculated solely based on her last drawn District Judge salary, with no addition for High Court tenure.
4. Section 14A provisions benefiting Bar members were irrelevant to District Judiciary Judges.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondent argued that her High Court tenure and District Judiciary service must be combined for pension under Section 15.
2. Differential pension treatment between Bar-elevated Judges and District Judiciary Judges violated Article 14’s equality principle.
3. Any delay in appointment resulting in a break in service was not attributable to her.
4. Judicial independence required equitable pension treatment to preserve dignity and financial security post-retirement.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. High Court Judges Act, 1954: Sections 14, 15, and 14A ensure pension parity and cumulative service recognition.
2. Constitution of India:
   • Article 217: Eligibility for High Court Judges.
   • Article 221: Judicial allowances and pensions.
3. Precedents Referenced:
   • Kuldip Singh v. Union of India (2002)
   • Government of NCT of Delhi v. All India Young Lawyers Association (2009)
   • P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India (2014)

I) JUDGMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court held that Section 15, not Section 14, governed the respondent’s pension. The respondent was entitled to cumulative service calculation, blending her District Judiciary and High Court tenure for pension determination. The break in service was irrelevant as her High Court appointment stemmed from prior recommendations.

b. OBITER DICTA

Judicial independence hinges on equitable treatment for judges, irrespective of their career background. The Act must be interpreted to prevent discrimination between Bar and District Judiciary appointees.

c. GUIDELINES

• Judges from District Judiciary elevated to High Courts must have their service combined for pension calculations.
• Administrative delays leading to service gaps cannot prejudice pension rights.
• Anti-discrimination principles under Article 14 apply to judicial pension policies.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to judicial equity, aligning statutory provisions with constitutional principles. It affirms the judiciary’s role as a cohesive institution, balancing diverse entry pathways.

K) REFERENCES

1. Kuldip Singh v. Union of India, [2002] 3 SCR 620.
2. Government of NCT of Delhi v. All India Young Lawyers Association, [2009] 3 SCR 555.
3. P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India, [2014] 4 SCR 562.
4. M L Jain v. Union of India, [1985] 3 SCR 608.
5. High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
6. Constitution of India: Articles 14, 217, 221.