UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE versus JUSTICE (RETD) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 15-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 848 : 2024 INSC 219
Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice  
v.  
Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 2024)
15 March 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI,* 
J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether gap between the retirement of a District Judge and her 
subsequent appointment as the Judge of the High Court would 
constitute ‘break in service’ adversely affecting her pensionary and 
other retirement benefits.
Headnotes
The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) 
Act, 1954 – s. 14, 15, Para 2, Part III of the First Schedule 
– Entitlement of High Court Judge promoted from District 
Judiciary to pension and retirement benefits despite break 
in service – Break in service has no adverse implications in 
computing pension since service upon appointment of a High 
Court Judge is in pursuance a recommendation which was 
made during her tenure as a Judge of the District Judiciary
The Respondent retired from District Judiciary on 31 July 2014 
– Subsequently, she was promoted as High Court Judge and 
appointed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 25 September 
2014 – The Respondent retired on 4 July 2016 on attaining the age 
of superannuation – The Appellant-Union of India contended that 
her service as the High Court Judge ought not be taken to calculate 
pensionary and retirement benefits as the break in service before 
assuming the role of High Court Judge cannot be condoned – The 
Appellant-Union of India contended that the Respondent has not 
completed twelve years of pensionable service as a Judge of the 
High Court to be eligible for the pension for High Court Judges 
under s.14 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of 
Service) Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) 
Held: s.15(1)(b) of the Act indicates that a person who has held 
a pensionable post under the Union or a State may elect to 
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
849
Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice v.  
Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others
receive the pension payable either under Part I or Part III of the 
First Schedule of the Act – Service which is rendered as a High 
Court Judge has to be cumulated with the service rendered as a 
member of the District Judiciary by treating it as service therein 
for computing the pension – s.14 not applicable as contended by 
the Appellant-Union of India – Explanation to s. 14 is exhaustive 
and it applies to a Judge who has not held any pensionable post 
either in the Union or the State or a person who having held a 
pensionable post has opted to receive the benefits of pension 
under Part I of the First Schedule – The Respondent who has not 
opted to receive the benefits of pension under Part I of the First 
Schedule would fall outside the purview of Explanation to s. 14 – 
Post-retiral pension to such a Judge would be governed by s.15 
r/w Para 2 of the Part III of the First Schedule – Contention of the 
Appellant-Union of India that the Respondent has not completed 
twelve years as High Court Judge does not apply in view of s.14A 
which entitles a member of the Bar elevated as High Court Judge 
to the addition of ten years of service – A similar principle, as 
applicable to Judges appointed from the Bar, must be applied for 
computing the pension of a member of the District Judiciary, who 
is appointed to the High Court – Any other interpretation would 
result in plain discrimination between Judges of the High Court 
based on the source from which they have been drawn – Break in 
service must necessarily have no adverse implications in computing 
the pension of the Respondent for the reason that her service 
upon appointment as a High Court Judge was in pursuance of a 
recommendation which was made during her tenure as a judge 
of the District Judiciary. [Paras 22, 26, 27 & 30]
Judiciary – Retirement Benefits – Pensionary payments to 
Judges constitute a vital element in the independence of the 
judiciary
Held: As a consequence of long years of judicial office, Judges 
on demitting office do not necessarily have the options which 
are open to members from other services – The reason why the 
State assumes the obligation to pay pension to the Judges is to 
ensure that the protection of the benefits which are available after 
retirement would ensure their ability to discharge their duties without 
“fear or favour” – The purpose of creating dignified conditions of 

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