Mode Of Retirement For Pension Is Irrelevant: Bombay High Court Grants Pensionary Benefit To Former HC Judge Who Tendered Her Resignation
The Bombay High Court was considering a petition filed by a former High Court Judge who was held not eligible for pension.
While allowing a pension plea of a former Judge who had tendered her resignation, the Bombay High Court held that the expression ‘retirement’ used in Sections 14 and 15(1) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 has been used in a broad sense and includes the case of retirement on resignation as well.
The High Court was considering a petition assailing a communication issued by the Registrar (Original Side) by which the petitioner, who was a former High Court Judge, had been informed that she was not eligible for pension. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to fix and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner along with interest.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre explained, “Thus, by taking into account the meaning of expression ‘retirement’ in common parlance, as well as text and context in which expression ‘retirement’ is used in Section 14 and Section 15(1) and the object of 1954 Act it is evident that the expression ‘retirement’ in Section 14 and 15(1) of 1954 Act has been used in a broad sense and it includes the case of retirement on resignation as well. The criteria of entitlement to pension is retirement and mode of retirement for pension is irrelevant for the purpose of Section 14 and 15(1) of 1954 Act.”
Senior Advocate Sunil Manohar represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Petitioner, a practicing advocate, was appointed as a District Judge in the year 2007. She was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2019 for two years in effect from the date she assumed charge. The petitioner assumed charge as an Additional Judge of the High Court, Bombay. The Central Government issued a Notification by which the tenure of the petitioner as Additional Judge of Bombay High Court was extended w.e.f. February 13, 2021 for a period of one year. The tenure of the petitioner as Additional Judge was to expire on February 12, 2022. The petitioner tendered resignation on February 11, 2022.
The Petitioner submitted an application to the Registry claiming pension on account of having rendered services as an Additional Judge for 2 years, 11 months and 29 days and as District Judge for 11 years, 3 months and 18 days. The petitioner was informed by the Registry Court that she was not entitled to claim pension. The petitioner filed an RTI application, and she was informed that five former Judges, who had tendered resignations, were being paid pensions. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to Sections 14 and 15 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954, the Bench noted that it was evident that the entitlement of a judge to pension is on his retirement and the same includes an involuntary act as well since retirement on account of ill-health is as contemplated by clause 14(c) of 1956 Act is an involuntary act.
“In case the Legislature intended to confine the benefits of pension only to a Judge who has retired on superannuation, it would have expressly said so. The word ‘retirement’ in Sections 14 and 15 of 1954 Act has not been used in a restricted sense to mean retirement on superannuation only”, it said while also adding, “In view of the preceding analysis, the inevitable conclusion is that the expression ‘retirement’ used in Section 14 and 15(1) of 1954 Act includes resignation as well.”
It was also noticed by the Bench that the five former Judges of this Court who had tendered their resignations are being paid the pension. However, no explanation worth name had been offered on behalf of the respondents for taking a different stand in the case of the petitioner alone. The High Court also referred to its judgment in Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande Vs High Court of Judicature of Bombay (2017) wherein it was concluded that the Judge who demitted his office as an additional Judge of this Court is entitled to pension.
The Bench quashed the impugned order passed by the Registrar (Original Side) of the High Court and held the petitioner entitled to pension w.e.f. February 14, 2022. “The respondents are directed to fix and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from 14.02.2022 within a period of two months from today along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum”, the Bench concluded.
Cause Title: Pushpa w/o. Virendra Ganediwala v. High Court of Judicature of Bombay & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:11778-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Sunil Manohar, Nikhil Sakhardande, Advocates Pralhad Paranjape, Ankit B. Rathod, Onkar Bajaj, Atharva S. Manohar, Anshu Agrawal
Respondent: Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar, Advocates Rahul Nerlekar Govt. Pleader Neha S. Bhide, Additional Govt. Pleader O. A. Chandurkar, AGP G. R. Raghuwanshi
