Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice vs. Justice (Retd.) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) [March 15, 2024]
Background
This Supreme Court case addressed the calculation of pension for High Court judges who had prior service in the district judiciary. Justice (Retd.) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) sought inclusion of her previous service as a district judge for pension computation after her elevation to the High Court. The Union of India argued that only continuous service as a High Court judge should count for pension, and that a break in service or less than 12 years as a High Court judge disqualified her from full pension benefits under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
Key Legal Issues
Whether prior service as a district judge can be “blended” with High Court service for pension calculation.
The interpretation of Sections 14, 15, and 14A of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and relevant constitutional provisions (Articles 217, 221).
Arguments
The Union of India maintained that the respondent was not entitled to have her district judiciary service counted for pension, as she had not completed the requisite 12 years as a High Court judge.
The respondent argued that under Section 15 and Part III of the First Schedule to the Act, her total judicial service (district plus High Court) should be considered for pension, and that the law allowed for such “blended” service to be recognized.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, examined the legislative intent and the structure of the Act. It noted that Section 15 and the First Schedule specifically provide for the addition of prior judicial service in the district courts for pension purposes, subject to certain conditions.
The Court rejected the Union’s narrow interpretation, holding that the Act contemplates a “blended service” approach, where the total length of qualifying service as a judge—whether in the district judiciary or the High Court—should be aggregated for pension computation.
The Court emphasized that such an interpretation aligns with the object of the Act and constitutional principles, ensuring fairness and parity among judges with similar judicial experience, regardless of whether their service was continuous or split between the district and High Court benches.
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the respondent’s claim, affirming her right to have her prior service as a district judge counted along with her High Court tenure for pension purposes.
The Court directed the Union of India to recalculate and pay the pension accordingly, based on the “blended service” principle.
Significance
The judgment clarifies the law on pension entitlement for High Court judges with prior judicial service, ensuring that their full judicial career is recognized for retirement benefits.
It prevents arbitrary exclusion of judicial service and promotes parity and fairness in pensionary matters for the higher judiciary.
Citation:
Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice vs. Justice (Retd.) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 2024, decided on March 15, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments