The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment delivered on May 19, has clarified that all retired High Court judges must be given equal and full pension benefits, no matter when they were appointed or how they entered service. This verdict marks a key affirmation of the “One Rank One Pension” principle for constitutional office holders.

The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, ruled that both permanent and additional judges are entitled to the same post-retirement benefits.

Read Also: High Courts Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Using Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

“One rank one pension must be the norm in respect of a constitutional office,” the Court stated, underscoring the need for equality in retirement benefits.

After analyzing the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and past judgments, the Court laid down the following key principles:

• The entire service of a retiring judge as a High Court judge must be considered for pension calculation. The last pay drawn as a High Court judge, not as a district judge, is relevant.
  (Ref: M.L. Jain v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 355)
• The pension ceiling in Part III of the First Schedule to the HCJ Act is unconstitutional under Article 14 and was already removed from 1st January 1996.
  (Ref: M.L. Jain (II), (1991) 1 SCC 644)

Read Also: Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict in Rape-Murder Case of Three-Year-Old Girl Citing Flawed Investigation

• There can be no discrimination in pension based on the source of appointment—whether from judicial services or from the Bar. All judges must receive equal pension, similar to how they receive equal salaries and allowances.
  (Ref: P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 1)
• Prior experience of judges from judicial services or the Bar must be acknowledged in pension computation.
  (Ref: P. Ramakrishnam Raju and Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 862)

“Any classification based on the source of appointment is unreasonable and lacks legal basis,” the Court clarified.

• Family pension must also be granted without any discrimination.
  (Ref: P. Ramakrishnam Raju case)
• If there is a break in service between retirement as a district judge and appointment as a High Court judge, it cannot be used to deny pension based on the judge’s High Court salary.
  (Ref: Union of India v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg)

Read Also:Trademark Disputes Not Always Outside Arbitration: Supreme Court Clarifies in Key Ruling

• Even if a judge was appointed after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into effect, they are still entitled to General Provident Fund (GPF) benefits under the HCJ Act.
  (Ref: Justice Shailendra Singh v. Union of India)

This judgment reinforces the constitutional value of equality and puts an end to long-standing disparities in the pension structure of High Court judges.

"No retired judge should be denied fair pension just because of technicalities or gaps in service history," the Court emphasized.

Case: IN RE REFIXATION OF PENSION CONSIDERING SERVICE PERIOD IN DISTRICT JUDICIARY AND HIGH COURT SMW(C) No. 4/2024, and connected cases.