IN RE: REFIXATION OF PENSION CONSIDERING SERVICE PERIOD IN DISTRICT JUDICIARY AND HC

SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4 OF 2024

(3JB, CJI B.R. GAVAI, AG MASIH and K. VINOD CHANDRAN JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI, CJI)

In a landmark ruling on May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of issues concerning the pension and terminal benefits of retired High Court judges. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, issued comprehensive directions to the Central Government aimed at ensuring parity in pension benefits under the principle of One Rank One Pension (OROP).

The Court directed that retired Chief Justices of High Courts be paid ₹15,00,000 per annum as full pension, while retired Judges (including Additional Judges) are to receive ₹13,50,000 per annum. This move aims to eliminate disparities that previously existed due to differences in entry paths (from District Judiciary or the Bar) and interruptions in service tenure. The case addressed multiple long-standing concerns:

1. Non-inclusion of District Judiciary tenure when calculating pension for Judges who joined the High Court from the subordinate judiciary.
2. Break-in-service issues, particularly between the date of retirement as District Judges and appointment as High Court Judges.
3. Impact of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on pension entitlement for Judges who began service after its implementation.
4. Eligibility of Additional Judges for full pension and terminal benefits.
5. Entitlement of widows and family members of deceased Judges, especially those who served as Additional Judges.
6. Denial of Provident Fund benefits under the HCJ Act due to appointments made post-NPS.

The Bench ruled that the definition of “Judge” under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, includes Chief Justices, acting Chief Justices, Additional Judges, and acting Judges. Denying pensions or family benefits based on status as Additional Judges was held to be arbitrary. The Court mandated that:

• All retired High Court Judges, regardless of entry route or length of service, must be treated equally under the OROP principle.
• Judges from the District Judiciary who joined post-NPS would also be entitled to full pension.
• Break-in-service should not disqualify a Judge from receiving full pension.
• Family pensions and gratuity are payable to the widows or family members of deceased Judges, whether they were Permanent or Additional Judges.
• Gratuity must factor in an additional 10 years of deemed service when calculating benefits.
• Allowances such as leave encashment, pension commutation, and provident fund must be paid per the HCJ Act.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar served as amicus curiae. The Attorney General of India, R. Venkatramani, and various counsels represented different stakeholders, including the Union of India and retired Judges. This ruling is a major step towards ensuring justice and dignity for the retired judicial community. By enforcing OROP and harmonizing pension entitlements across categories, the Court has ensured uniformity, recognition, and financial security for retired High Court judges and their families.