Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran mandates "one rank one pension" for all retired High Court judges, ensuring full pension irrespective of date of retirement, source of entry, or service tenure. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of In Re Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court (2025). 

What was the Background of In Re Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court (2025) Case? 

• Multiple petitions were filed by retired High Court judges and their family members regarding various pension-related disputes and denial of terminal benefits under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. 
• The primary grievance involved discrimination in pension payments where retired judges who had previously served as District Judges were not receiving full pension, as their prior service in the district judiciary was not being considered for pension calculations. 
• Break-in-service penalty was being imposed on judges who had a gap between their retirement as District Judges and their appointment as High Court Judges, resulting in reduced pension amounts despite their continuous judicial service. 
• Judges who entered district judiciary after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into effect were facing uncertainty about their entitlement to pension under the traditional High Court judges' pension scheme versus the contributory pension system. 
• Additional Judges of High Courts were being denied full pension benefits and were not being treated at par with permanent judges, despite performing the same judicial functions during their tenure. 
• Family members of deceased Additional Judges were being denied benefits including gratuity and family pension, with authorities arguing that the deceased judge had not completed the minimum qualifying service period of 2 years and 6 months. 
• Provident fund payments were being withheld from judges appointed after the NPS implementation, creating financial hardship and uncertainty about their retirement benefits under Section 20 of the Act. 
• The pension structure was creating different categories of retired judges with varying benefit amounts based on their source of entry (district judiciary versus bar), date of appointment, and length of service, leading to discriminatory treatment. 
• These issues collectively raised fundamental questions about equal treatment of constitutional office holders and the independence of judiciary, as financial security after retirement affects judicial decision-making during service. 
• The matter required judicial intervention to establish uniform pension principles and ensure that all retired High Court judges receive equal treatment in terminal benefits, regardless of their career path or appointment circumstances. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that creating different pension categories would constitute "absolute absurdity" and held that all retired judges would be entitled to pension calculated on the basic pension of Rs.13,50,000/- per annum to remove arbitrariness, inequality and discrimination while bringing parity in pension payments. 
• The Court found that discrimination in pension based on source of entry violates Article 14 of the Constitution, observing that when all High Court judges receive equal treatment in salary and perquisites during service, any differential treatment in terminal benefits after retirement would be patently discriminatory. 
• The Court emphasised the principle of "one rank one pension" stating that once a judge assumes the constitutional office of High Court Judge and enters the constitutional class, no differential treatment is permissible merely on the ground of date of appointment or source of entry. 
• The Court ruled that break-in-service cannot be grounds for pension denial, noting that precedent established in Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg case had already settled this issue, directing full pension consideration regardless of gaps between district and High Court service. 
• The Court observed that the definition of "Judge" under Section 2(g) of the HCJ Act is comprehensive and includes Chief Justice, acting Chief Justice, Additional Judge and acting Judge, making any artificial discrimination between permanent and Additional Judges a violation of the statutory definition. 
• The Court noted that Additional Judges perform identical functions and receive similar pay and allowances as permanent judges during service, with their status being determined by fortuitous circumstances of vacancy availability rather than merit or capability differences. 
• The Court found the denial of family pension and gratuity to Additional Judges' families to be "patently arbitrary" since the statutory definition of "Judge" encompasses Additional Judges, making such denial unsustainable and discriminatory. 
• The Court applied harmonious construction principles to interpret gratuity provisions, directing that 10 years be added to service period for calculation purposes, ensuring deceased judges' families receive benefits regardless of minimum qualifying service completion. 
• The Court clarified that all allowances under the HCJ Act must be paid uniformly including leave encashment, commutation of pension, and provident fund, emphasising that mode of entry as High Court Judge cannot affect entitlement to statutory benefits. 
• The Court recognised the constitutional imperative of judicial independence by ensuring uniform terminal benefits, observing that permitting different states to have varying terminal benefits would create discrimination and undermine the uniformity required for constitutional office holders. 

What are the Directions Passed by the Bench ? 

• The Union of India shall pay full pension of Rs 15 lakh per annum to a retired Chief Justice of the High Court. 
• The Union of India shall pay full pension of Rs 13.50 lakh per annum to a retired High Court Judge other than a retired Chief Justice of the High Court. A retired High Court Judge shall also include a person who retired as an Additional Judge. 
• The Union of India shall follow the principle of "one rank one pension" for the retired judges of the High Court, irrespective of their source of entry, that is district judiciary or the bar, and irrespective of the number of years they have served either as a district judge or a High Court judge, and all of them shall be paid full pension. 
• In the case of a retired judge of a High Court, who has previously served as a District Judge, the Union of India shall pay full pension, irrespective of any break in service, between the date on which he/she retired as a judge of the District Judiciary and the date on which he/she assumed charge as a judge of the High Court. 
• In the case of a retired judge of a High Court, who has previously served as a District Judge and who entered into the district judiciary after the coming into force of the Contributory Pension Scheme or the new pension scheme, the Union of India shall pay the full pension. In so far as their contribution to the NPS, we direct the States to refund the entire amount contributed by such of the retired judges of the High Court, along with the dividend if any accrued thereon. However, the contributions made by the State Governments shall be retained by the respective States along with the dividend, if any, accrued thereon; 
• The Union of India shall pay family pension to the widow or family members of a judge of the High Court who died in harness, irrespective of whether such a judge was a permanent judge or an additional judge of the High Court. 
• The Union of India shall pay gratuity to the widow or family members of a judge of the High Court who died in harness, by adding career period for the period of service undergone of the said judge, irrespective of the minimum qualifying period of service, has been completed or not. 
• The Union of India shall pay all allowances to the judge of a High Court in accordance with the provisions of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954 and the same shall include leave encashment, commutation of pension, provident fund.