Supreme Court Upholds Pension Fixation Under Part I for Retired High Court Judge Appointed as Vice-Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal. High Court Judge Holds Constitutional Office Not Government Post, So Retired Judge's Pension Not Subject to Part III of First Schedule to High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

Case Note & Summary

Background: The appeal arose from a dispute over pension fixation for a retired High Court Judge who subsequently served as Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The first respondent was appointed a Judge of the Calcutta High Court on 13 January 1978 and retired on 16 February 1989. She was appointed Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 3 March 1989 and served until 16 February 1992, when she retired from that post. As a direct recruit from the Bar, she was drawing pension as a retired High Court Judge under Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The Union of India contended that upon her appointment as Vice-Chairman she held a pensionable post under the Union, and therefore her pension on retirement from the Tribunal had to be fixed under Part III of the First Schedule, not Part I. She filed O.A. No. 513 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld her claim and held that Part I applied. The Union appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court, raising two questions: whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction and whether pension should be under Part I or Part III. Facts: Chronologically, after her retirement as High Court Judge, she continued to draw pension; her appointment as Vice-Chairman was governed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985, particularly Rule 15A, which provided that conditions of service and perquisites of Vice-Chairman would be the same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court. The High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, in Sections 14 and 15, dealt with pension: Section 14 applied to a Judge who was not a member of the Indian Civil Service and had not held any other pensionable post under the Union or State, while Section 15 applied to a Judge who had held such a post and had not elected for Part I. The Union argued that since she was holding a pensionable post as Vice-Chairman at retirement, Part III applied. The respondent argued that as a retired High Court Judge drawing pension, she was not holding a pensionable post under the Union or State. Legal Issues: The main legal issue was whether a High Court Judge holds a post under the Union or a State, and consequently whether a retired High Court Judge drawing pension could be said to be holding a pensionable post under the Union or State when she retired as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal. Arguments: The Union asserted that the Vice-Chairman post was pensionable and thus Section 15, Part III applied. The respondent contended that her direct recruitment from the Bar and prior pension under Part I meant she never held a pensionable civil post under Union or State; as a constitutional functionary, she was not a government servant. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court examined constitutional provisions, including Articles 50, 214, 217, 219, 221 and 229, and concluded that the Constitution makers deliberately insulated the judiciary from executive control. A High Court Judge is appointed by the President, holds office till age 62, can be removed only by a special parliamentary procedure, and takes oath to perform duties without fear or favour. These provisions establish that a High Court Judge is not a government servant but the holder of a constitutional office. The Court also referred to Union of India v. Sakalchand Himatlal Sheth, where it was observed that there is no master and servant relationship between Government and High Court Judges. Therefore, a retired High Court Judge drawing pension cannot be said to be holding a pensionable post under the Union or a State. Decision: Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent's pension as Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal had to be fixed under Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and not Part III. The Court did not decide the jurisdictional question, preferring to settle the pension issue substantively. The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court held that a High Court Judge is not a government servant and does not hold a post under the Union or a State. Consequently, the respondent, a retired High Court Judge drawing pension, was not holding a pensionable post under the Union or State when she retired as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal. Her pension as Vice-Chairman had to be fixed under Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, not Part III. The appeal was dismissed.

Law Points