The Bombay High Court has declared that a High Court Judge’s resignation qualifies as retirement for pension benefits. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre, overturned the Bombay High Court Registry’s decision that denied pension benefits to former Judge Pushpa Ganediwala, who had resigned before completing her tenure.

Background of the Case

Pushpa w/o Virendra Ganediwala was initially appointed as a District Judge on October 26, 2007. On February 13, 2019, she was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court for a two-year term. The Central Government extended her tenure for another year until February 12, 2022. However, she resigned on February 11, 2022, and her resignation was officially notified by the Ministry of Law and Justice on March 14, 2023.

Following her resignation, Ganediwala applied for pension benefits based on her combined service of over 14 years as a District Judge and High Court Judge. However, the Bombay High Court Registry denied her request, citing opinions from the Ministry of Law & Justice, the Principal Accountant General, and the Advocate General of Maharashtra. They argued that resignation did not equate to retirement under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (1954 Act).

Read Also:- Supreme Court Rebukes Punjab Government for Reneging on Pension Scheme Commitment

Senior Advocates Sunil Manohar and Nikhil Sakhardande, representing the petitioner, argued that a High Court Judge holds a constitutional office, and their pension entitlement should be determined under constitutional provisions rather than service rules. They emphasized that Sections 14 and 15 of the 1954 Act use the term “retirement” broadly, which should include resignation.

Ganediwala also obtained information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, revealing that five former Bombay High Court judges who had resigned were receiving pensions. Denying her pension, therefore, was arbitrary and discriminatory.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar, representing the Bombay High Court, contended that resignation and retirement are distinct concepts. According to the state government’s stance, only judges retiring through superannuation or due to ill health should be entitled to pensions. The UCO Bank & Ors. vs. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412 case was cited in support, which held that resignation results in the forfeiture of past service benefits.

Read Also:- Supreme Court to Decide on Sanjiv Bhatt's Plea Against Life Sentence in 1990 Custodial Torture Case

The Bombay High Court, after analyzing constitutional provisions and precedents, ruled in favor of the petitioner. The bench held that:

• The term “retirement” is not restrictively defined under the 1954 Act and should be interpreted broadly to include resignation.
• Resignation is merely one of the modes of concluding judicial service and should not disqualify a judge from receiving pension benefits.
• The state’s reliance on UCO Bank vs. Sanwar Mal was misplaced since that case involved specific service rules that did not apply to the 1954 Act.
• The fact that five other judges received pensions despite resigning demonstrated inconsistency in the respondents’ stance.

“Resignation, like superannuation or retirement due to ill health, brings an end to judicial service. To deny pensionary benefits solely on the ground of resignation would be contrary to the intent of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and the principles of equality.”

The court quashed the November 2, 2022 decision of the Bombay High Court Registry and directed the authorities to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from February 14, 2022, along with 6% interest per annum, payable within two months.