Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande, a former judge of the Bombay High Court, filed a writ petition seeking revision of his pension. He was appointed as a District Judge in 1985 and later elevated as a judge of the Bombay High Court in 2004, retiring in 2012. Upon retirement, his pension was computed based on his last drawn salary as a District Judge, not as a High Court judge. The petitioner contended that this was illegal and arbitrary, as he retired as a High Court judge and his pension should be computed on his last drawn salary as a judge. He relied on Rule 68 of the Bombay High Court Pension Rules, 1956, which provides that pension is calculated on the last pay drawn. The respondents argued that the petitioner's pension was correctly fixed under the Fundamental Rules applicable to District Judges, and that he was not entitled to the higher pension of a High Court judge. The court analyzed the relevant rules and constitutional provisions, holding that pension is a right and not a bounty, and that the pensionary benefits must be computed on the last drawn salary in the post from which the employee retires. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the petitioner's pension should be limited to the amount payable to a District Judge, as it would undermine the status and dignity of a High Court judge. The court directed the respondents to revise the petitioner's pension based on his last drawn salary as a judge and pay arrears with interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement until payment. The court also held that the denial of pension revision violates Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Computation of Pension - Rule 68 of Bombay High Court Pension Rules, 1956 - The petitioner, a former judge of the Bombay High Court, sought revision of his pension contending that it should be computed on the basis of his last drawn salary as a judge, not as a District Judge. The court held that pension is a right and not a bounty, and that the pensionary benefits must be computed on the last drawn salary in the post from which the employee retires. The court directed the respondents to revise the petitioner's pension accordingly and pay arrears with interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 1-24) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Pension - Articles 14, 16, 21, 300A of the Constitution of India - The court held that pension is a property right and its denial without authority of law violates Article 300A. The court also held that the classification between judges who retired as District Judges and those who retired as High Court judges for pension computation is arbitrary and violates Article 14. (Paras 15-20) C) Service Law - Judicial Independence - Pensionary Benefits - The court emphasized that pensionary benefits of judges must be protected to ensure judicial independence. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner's pension should be limited to the amount payable to a District Judge, as it would undermine the status and dignity of a High Court judge. (Paras 21-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the pension of a former judge of the Bombay High Court should be computed on the basis of the last drawn salary as a judge or on the basis of the salary drawn at the time of retirement from the post of District Judge, and whether the denial of pension revision violates Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to revise the petitioner's pension based on his last drawn salary as a judge of the Bombay High Court and pay arrears with interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement until payment.
Law Points
- Pensionary benefits
- Last drawn salary
- Rule 68 of Bombay High Court Pension Rules
- 1956
- Fundamental Rules
- Article 14
- Article 16
- Article 21
- Article 300A
- Judicial independence
