V. B. RAJU versus UNLON OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 04-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

V. B. RAJU 
v. 
UNlON OF INDIA & OTHERS 
September 4, 1980 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI 
AND A. D. KOSHAL JJ.] 
599 
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, second pmviso to 
section 14 and clause (a) of section 15 read with Part II of First Schedule, vali· 
dity of-Whether an I.C.S. Officer drawn to the judicial side, continued in service 
under section 10(2) of the Independence Act, 1947 
and Article 314 of the 
Constitution and later on appointed as a High Court Judge entitled to double 
pension, one for the service as an I.C.S. Officer and the other for the service 
as a High Court Judge. 
Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court 
HELD: 
(1) The trichotomy originating with the Government of India 
(High Court Judges) Order, 1937, continued under section 10(2) of the Independ· 
ence Act, 1947 and finally adopted by the High Court Judges (Conditions et 
Service) Act, 1954 does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity 
and, on the other hand, has the sanction of the Constitution itself. [612 Fl 
(2) The trichotomy is good not only because it was adopted by the Consti-
tution till legislation was enacted under Article 221(2) thereof, but also because 
it was necessitated by reason of High Court Judges being drawn from three 
different sources, namely, Indian Civil Service, State Judicial Services 
and 
directly from the Bar. 
All the -High Co~rt Judges though holding equivalent 
posts are thus not similarly situated, particularly in regard to the payment of 
pension and other retirement benefits. 
The .classification so made is a reason· 
able classification based on intelligible differentia having a proper nexus to the 
object to be achieved and there is thus no question of any violation of Articles 
14, 221 and 314 of the Constitution. [010 H·611 A, C; 612 F] 
(3) It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the legisla-
ture does not use meaningless language and that every word used by it must 
be presumed to have some meaning even though the phraseology employed may 
sometimes be obscure or ambiguous. [608 F] 
The expression "who is a member of thr. Indian Civil Service" appearing 
in clause (a) of section 15 of the 1954 Act cannot be just ignored as being in; 
applicable to an existing situation and thus rendered otiose. What was meant 
was to describe as a class High Court Judges who had earlier been members 
of the Indian Civil Service so that they could he distinguished from High C"1irt 
Judges who had not been such members. 
Although the Indian Civil Service 
ceased to function as a Service of the Secretary of State for India after the 
15th of August 1947 when the 1947 Act was enforced, its members were auto-
matically appointed to corresponding posts under the Crown in connection with 
the affairs of the Dominion of India or of a Province by virtue of the provi-
sions of sub-clause (1) of clause 7 of the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 
1947. 
The Indian Civil Service was not abolished in so many words and on 
the 0th.er hand, its members were given the right to continne in service on 
and after the 15th August, 1947 under the same conditions of service as were 
applicable to them immediately before that date as made out by sub-sections (1) 
and (2) of section 10 of the 1947 Act. [608 G-609 A, C-DJ 
J... 
All that sub-section (1) enacted was that the provisions of the Government 
of India Act, 1935 ceased to operate in relation to appointments to the civil 
services of, and civil posts under, the Crown in India, by the Secretary of State 
but sub-sec\ion (2) fully preserved the rights of and conditions of service appli· 
cable to holde_rs of appointments already made by the Secretary of State, the 
-~ 
only difference being that in place of the Secretary of State the employers oi 
the incumbents became the respective Governments concerned. [610 B-C] 
( 4) The second proviso to section 14 of the 1954 Act has no application to 
the appellant inasmuch as he was not in actual receipt of a pension for his 
services in the Indian Civil Serviee under proviso to para 10 of Part D of Second 
Schedule to the Constitution as added by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) 
_.-4 
Act, 1956. 
The appellant having accepted appointment as a High Court Judge 
in continuation of his service as a District Judge, he never became entitled 
to pension for the pe

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