K. SREEDHAR RAO versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE, NEW DELHI

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 06-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
K. SREEDHAR RAO
v.
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE, NEW DELHI
 (Writ Petition (C ) No. 300 of 2016)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act,
1954 – rr. 2 and 7 of Part-I of First Schedule – Pensionary benefits
of retired Acting Chief Justice of the High Court – Calculation of –
Petitioner served as an Acting Chief Justice of the High Court for
14 months and retired in that capacity – Petitioner claimed the
pensionary benefits as available to the Chief Justice of the High
Court – The said claim was declined by the Central Government –
Writ petition before the Supreme Court – Held: There is a clear
distinction between a Judge appointed as an Acting Chief Justice
u/Art. 223 of the Constitution and a Chief Justice appointed u/Art.
217 of the Constitution – It is only for the limited purpose of salary,
such an Acting Chief Justice is treated at par with the Chief Justice
and not for any other purpose, more particularly the pension –
However for the purposes of pension,  r. 2 and r. 7 of Part I of the
First Schedule of the 1954 Act are required to be read conjointly
and while making the computation of pension u/r. 2 of Part I of the
First Schedule, the service rendered as an Acting Chief Justice is
required to be considered as a Chief Justice and accordingly his
pension is required to be counted and for that period his pension is
required to be computed as if he has rendered service as Chief Justice
– In the instant case, the services rendered by the petitioner as an
Acting Chief Justice was for a period of 14 months and the same is
to be counted/calculated as that of the Chief Justice – Therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits including
the ceiling in the pension which may be available to a retired Chief
Justice, but only for the period of service rendered by him as an
Acting Chief Justice is required to be considered as service rendered
as a Chief Justice for the purpose of computation of pension –
Constitution of India – Arts. 217 and 223 – Judiciary – Service
Law – Pension.
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 81
81
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. It is required to be noted that there is a clear
distinction between a Judge appointed as an Acting Chief Justice
under Article 223 of the Constitution of India and a Chief Justice
appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution. Considering
Article 223 of the Constitution of India, it can be seen that a
Judge of the High Court is appointed as an Acting Chief Justice
under Article 223 of the Constitution for the purposes of the
duties of the Chief Justice and the office of the Chief Justice
remains vacant. In a case where the office of the Chief Justice of
the High Court is vacant, the duties of the office of the Chief
Justice will be performed by any other Judge as Acting Chief
Justice. Therefore, only for the limited purpose of salary, such
an Acting Chief Justice is treated at par with the Chief Justice
and not for any other purpose, more particularly the pension.
For the purposes of pension, the relevant provisions of the High
Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 are
to be considered and while computing the pension as per Rule 2
of Part I of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act, the service
rendered by a Judge as an Acting Chief Justice only is required
to be counted as a Chief Justice and his pension is required to be
computed accordingly as a Chief Justice for the service rendered
as an Acting Chief Justice. Therefore, the services rendered by
the petitioner as an Acting Chief Justice, i.e., for a period of 14
months, is to be counted/calculated as that of the Chief Justice,
namely, Rs.1,21,575/- per annum, or as the case may be. Rule 7
of Part I of the First Schedule cannot be read in isolation. Even
Rule 7 specifically provides that for the purposes of this part –
Part I, service as an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court shall be
treated as though it were service rendered as Chief Justice of a
High Court. Rule 2 and Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of
the 1954 Act are required to be read conjointly and if are read
conjointly, in that case, while making the computation of pension
under Rule 2 of Part I of the First Schedule, the service rendered
as an Acting Chief Justice is required to be considered as a Chief
Justice and accord

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.