P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 31-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 562 
P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2002) 
MARCH 31, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
JUDICIARY: 
Judicial service -
High Court Judges (Salaries & 
Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 - s.14; First schedule Part I, 
Clause 2 - Pension for the retired judges of High Court who 
are directly appointed from the Bar - Clause 2 of Part I says 
0 that no pension is payable to the judges having less than 7 
years of service as a judge - Constitutional validity of - Held: 
The Judges, who are appointed under Article 217(2)(a) being 
members of the Judicial Service, even if they serve as a 
Judge of the High Court for only one or two years, get full 
pension benefits because of the applicability of Rule 26B or 
E because of their earlier entry into judicial service - However, 
the Judges of the High Court, who are appointed from the Bar 
do not get similar benefit of full pension - This is arbitrary and 
discriminatory - s. 14 of the HCJ Act and Clause 2 of Part I of 
the First Schedule which governs the pension payable to 
F Judges gives rise to unequal consequences - The existing 
scheme treats unequally the equals, which is violative of 
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution - lffespective of the 
source from where the Judges are drawn, they must be paid 
the same pension just as they have been paid same salaries 
G and allowances and perks as serving Judges - If the service 
of a judicial officer is counted for fixation of pension, there is 
no valid reason as to why the experience at Bar cannot be 
treated as equivalent for the same purpose - Thus, fixation 
H 
562 
P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA 
563 
of higher pension to the Judges drawn from the Subordinate 
A 
Judiciary who have served for shorter period in 
contradistinction to Judges drawn from the Bar who have 
served for longer period with less pension is highly 
discriminatory and breach of Article 14 of the Constitution -
The classification itself is unreasonable without any legally 
B 
acceptable nexus with the object sought to be achieved -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21. 
Scheme for post-retiral benefits to the retired Chief 
Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts -
C 
Held: Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount 
of Rs. 14, 0001- per month to the retired Chief Justices of the 
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and an amount of Rs.12,0001 
- per month to the retired Judges of the High Court of Andhra 
Pradesh for defraying the services of an orderly, driver, 
security guard etc. and for meeting expenses incurred towards 
D 
secretarial assistance on contract basis and a residential 
telephone free of cost with number of free calls to the extent 
of 1500 per month over and above the number of free calls 
per month allowed by the telephone authorities to both the 
retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court of Andhra 
E 
Pradesh w.e.f. 01.04.2012 - Steps taken by the Government 
of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already 
formulated such scheme appreciated - Other States who 
have so far not framed such scheme to also formulate the 
same, depending on the local conditions, for the benefit of the 
F 
retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective 
High Courts as early as possible. 
The instant writ petitions were filed by the former 
Judges of the various High Courts as well as the 
G 
Association of the Retired Judges of the Supreme Court 
and the High Courts elevated from the Bar. The prayer 
in the writ petitions was that for the purpose of 
determining the maximum pension permissible under 
Part-I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges 
H 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 4 S.C.R. 
A (salaries and conditions of Service) Act, 1954, the number 
of years practiced as an Advocate should be taken into 
account and should be added to the service as a Judge 
of the High Court. It was further stated that in respect of 
Part-Ill of the First Schedule, which dealt with the Judges 
B elevated from the State Judicial Service, almost all the 
Judges get full pension even if they have worked as a 
Judge of the High Court for 2 or 3 years and their entire 
service is added to their service as a Judge of the High 
Court for computing pension under this Part. For this 
c reason, the members of the subordinate judiciary get 
more pension than the Judges elevated from the Bar on 
ret

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