Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Background
Eight judges of the Patna High Court who had earlier served as District Judges challenged a government communication denying them the benefit of the General Provident Fund, a retirement savings scheme available to High Court judges who came from the Bar, solely because they had been covered by the New Pension Scheme as members of the district judiciary before their elevation. A connected petition raised a related issue: whether a retired High Court judge who had been a practicing advocate before joining the district judiciary was entitled to an additional ten years added to his pensionable service, a benefit ordinarily given only to judges appointed directly from the Bar.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that once appointed to the High Court, all judges, regardless of whether they came from the Bar or the district judiciary, form one single, homogenous class of constitutional office holders, and cannot be treated differently in their salary, pension, or other service benefits. It found that the law relied upon by the government (a proviso in the High Court Judges Act) was meant only to protect judges already contributing to an existing provident fund, not to bar district-judiciary judges from the General Provident Fund altogether. The Court quashed the government's communication, directed that Provident Fund accounts be opened for the petitioners with contributions at par with all other High Court judges, and in the connected matter directed that the retired judge's pension be recalculated by adding ten years of service, consistent with the treatment given to judges from the Bar.
Lesson Learnt
Judges of a High Court cannot be given unequal financial treatment based on whether they originally came from the Bar or from the district judiciary: the Constitution treats financial independence of judges, both in service and after retirement, as essential to preserving judicial independence itself.