8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
1/19Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 521 OF 2002
P. Ramakrishnam Raju .... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 523 OF 2002
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 524 OF 2002
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3 OF 2003
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3! OF 2003
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4"5 OF 2005AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.424!#424$ OF 2014(A%&'& *+, *- S.L.P. (C) N*'. $55!#$55$ *- 2010)
J U D G M E N T
P.S,/'& CJI.
1) The main question whih arises for onsideration is
whether !i"h #ourt $ud"es% who are appointed from the ar
1
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
2/19Page 2
under 'rtie 1*()(+) of the #onstitution of India% on
retirement% are entited for an addition of 1, -ears to their
serie for the purposes of their pension/
) The a+oe petitions hae +een fied +- former $ud"es of
the arious !i"h #ourts of the ountr- as we as +- the
'ssoiation of the Retired $ud"es of the 0upreme #ourt and
the !i"h #ourts eeated from the ar.
) The petitioners hae pra-ed that the num+er of -ears
pratied as an adoate sha +e taken into aount and
sha +e added to the serie as a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt for
the purpose of determinin" the ma2imum pension
permissi+e under Part3I of the 4irst 0hedue to the !i"h
#ourt $ud"es (0aaries and #onditions of 0erie) 't% 1567
(in short 8the !#$ 't9). It was further stated that in respet
of Part3III of the 4irst 0hedue% whih deas with the $ud"es
eeated from the 0tate $udiia 0erie% amost a the $ud"es
"et fu pension een if the- hae worked as a $ud"e of the
!i"h #ourt for or -ears and their entire serie is added
to their serie as a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt for omputin"
2
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
3/19Page 3
pension under this Part. 4or this reason% the mem+ers of the
su+ordinate judiiar- "et more pension than the $ud"es
eeated from the ar on retirement.
7) In iew of the a+oe% the petitioners pra-ed that thou"h
Part3I and Part3III $ud"es hod equiaent posts% the- are not
simiar- situated in re"ard to pension and retirement
+enefits whih is +reah of 'rties 17 and 1 of the
#onstitution of India and one rank one pension must +e the
norm in respet of a onstitutiona offie. It is further pra-ed
that the retired $ud"es of the !i"h #ourts shoud aso +e
"ien enhaned aowane for domesti hep:peon:drier%
teephone e2penses and other seretaria assistane.
6) ;e hae heard the ar"uments adaned +- earned
ounse for the parties and perused the reords.
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
4/19Page 4
proides for appointment of $ud"es from amon"st the
mem+ers of the ar at a the three ees.
*) The appointment of the $ud"es of the 0upreme #ourt is
"oerned +- 'rtie 17()%(a)% (+) and () of the
#onstitution. It enisa"es appointment from three soures?
(i) from amon"st the $ud"es of the !i"h #ourt hain" serie
of at east fie -ears> (ii) the mem+ers of the ar hain" a
standin" of not ess than 1, -ears> and (iii) an- person% who
is% in the opinion of the President% is a distin"uished jurist.
@) The appointment of a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt is
"oerned +- 'rtie 1*()(a) and (+) of the #onstitution
whih enisa"es appointments from two different soures?
(a) from amon"st the $udiia offiers who hae hed the
offie for at east 1, -ears> and (+) the mem+ers of the ar%
who hae +een 'doates of a !i"h #ourt for at east 1,
-ears.
5) The appointment of Aistrit $ud"es is "oerned +-
'rtie () of the #onstitution whih proides that a
person not aread- in the serie of the Union or of the 0tate
4
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
5/19Page 5
sha on- +e ei"i+e to +e appointed as a distrit jud"e if he
has +een for not ess than seen -ears an adoate or a
peader and is reommended +- the !i"h #ourt for
appointment.
1,) The 0upreme #ourt $ud"es (0aaries & #onditions of
0erie) 't% 156@% (in short 8the 0#$ 't9)% the !#$ 't and
the Rues made thereunder% re"uate their saar- and
onditions of serie. The proisions under +oth the 'ts
were simiar prior to the 'mendment 't% ,,6. The serie
onditions of the $ud"es of the su+ordinate ourts are
"oerned +- the 0erie Rues made under 'rtie ,5 of the
#onstitution of India.
11) 0etion 1 of the 0#$ 't read with #ause of Part3I of
the 0hedue deas with the pension pa-a+e to the retired
$ud"es of the 0upreme #ourt. 0imiar-% 0etion 17 of the !#$
't read with #ause of Part3I of the 4irst 0hedue deas
with the pension pa-a+e to the retired $ud"es of the !i"h
#ourts. The proisions under +oth the 'ts were simiar prior
to the 'mendment 't% ,,6. Reeant portion of 0etion 17
of the !#$ 't reads as foows?
5
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
6/19Page 6
B14. P'&* 67 ,* J+8'.# 0u+jet to theproisions of this 't% eer- $ud"e sha% on his retirement%+e paid a pension in aordane with the sae andproisions in Part 1 of the 4irst 0hedue?
Proided that no suh pension sha +e pa-a+e to a $ud"euness3
a) he has ompeted not ess than twee -ears of seriefor pension> or
+) he has attained the a"e of si2t-3two -ears> or
) his retirement is media- ertified to +e neessitated+- i3heath>C
1) #ause of Part3I to the 4irst 0hedue of the said 't
deas with the pension for the retired $ud"es of the !i"h
#ourt% who are diret- appointed from the ar% whih reads
as under?3
B. 0u+jet to the other proisions of this part% the pensionpa-a+e to a $ud"e% to whom this part app- and who has
ompeted not ess than * -ears of serie for pensionsha +e
(a) for serie as #hief $ustie in an- !i"h #ourt%Rs.7%@5,:3 per annum for eah ompeted -ear of serie>(+) for serie as an- other $ud"e in an- !i"h #ourtRs.7%6,:3 per annum for eah ompeted -ear of serie.
Proided that the pension under this para"raph sha in noase e2eed Rs.6%7,%,,,:3 per annum in the ase of #hief$ustie and Rs.7%@,%,,,:3 per annum in ase of an- other
$ud"es.C
1) The a+oe3noted #ause () of Part I of the 4irst
0hedue impies that no pension is pa-a+e to the $ud"es
hain" ess than * -ears of serie as a $ud"e. The a+oe
6
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
7/19Page 7
0etion further shows that for a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt to
reeie fu pension +enefits% he shoud hae ompeted 1
-ears of serie as a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt. It is su+mitted
that when mem+ers of the ar are offered the post of !i"h
#ourt $ud"es% the- are "enera- at the a"e of a+out 6, -ears
or a+oe and at the prime of their pratie% whih the- hae
to "ie up to sere the s-stem. Therefore% man- of them are
reutant to aept the offer as the post3retirement +enefits
are not attratie enou"h.
17) 0etion 1 and #ause of the 0hedue to the 0#$ 't
earier ontained simiar prohi+ition with re"ard to the
ei"i+iit- of pension to the $ud"es appointed from the ar as
ontained in the !#$ 't. oth the 'ts proide that no
pension sha +e pa-a+e to a $ud"e who has ess than *
-ears of serie.
16) In Kuldip Singhs. Union of India% (,,) 5 0## 1@%
the petitioner therein% who was appointed as a $ud"e of the
0upreme #ourt from the ar% on his retirement was denied
the +enefit of pension as he did not fufi the requisite
onditions. #onsequent-% he fied a ;rit Petition +efore this
7
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
8/19Page 8
#ourt pra-in"% inter alia,(a) to take into aount 1, -ears of
pratie at the ar in addition to his serie for the purposes
of pension. (+) In the aternatie% pra-ed for a diretion to
treat the appointees under 'rtie 17()(+) for the purposes
of pension atparwith the appointees under 'rtie 17()(a).
On 7.,5.,,% whie issuin" notie% this #ourt passed the
foowin" order?3
91. In this writ petition% the question whih arises foronsideration reates to pension whih is pa-a+e to a$ud"e who retires from this #ourt after hain" +eenappointed diret- from the ar. 0imiar question asoarises with re"ard to ar appointees to the !i"h #ourts.
2. =2periene has shown that the ar appointeesespeia-% if the- are appointed at the a"e of 6, -ears anda+oe% "et esser pension than the 0erie $ud"eappointees. It is to +e seen that as far as the #onstitutionof India is onerned% it stipuates the manner ofappointment of the $ud"es and proides what ma- +etermed as the quaifiation required for their appointment.The #onstitution ontempates appointment to the !i"h#ourts from amon"st mem+ers of the ar as we as fromamon"st the judiia offiers. The #onstitution does notproide for an- speifi quota. Ti a few -ears a"o inpratie
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
9/19Page 9
propose more 0erie $ud"es +ein" appointed if suita+emem+ers of the ar are not aaia+e. ut this annot +emore than 7,D in an- ase. It ma- here aso +e noted thatin the #hief $usties9 #onferene hed in 1555% it wasunanimous- resoed that the quota shoud norma- +e
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
10/19Page 10
17 0## 75% a Gaw-ers9 'ssoiation fied a writ petition in the
!i"h #ourt of Aehi pra-in" therein that the +enefit of 16
-ears addition of serie +e "ien to the $ud"e% who is
diret- appointed from the ar to the !i"her $udiia 0erie
for the purposes of pension. The writ petition was aowed
and Rue
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
11/19Page 11
+enefit of 1, -ears addition to their serie for the purposes
of pension is +ein" denied to the $ud"es of the !i"h ourt
appointed from the ar% whih is ar+itrar- and ioatie of
'rtie 17 of the #onstitution of India.
15) The =2panation (aa) appended to 'rtie 1*() of the
#onstitution of India enisa"es that% Bin omputin" the period
durin" whih a person has +een an adoate of a !i"h #ourt%
there sha +e inuded an- period durin" whih the person
has hed judiia offie or the offie of a mem+er of a tri+una
or an- post% under the Union or a 0tate% requirin" speia
knowed"e of aw after he +eame an adoate.C The
e2panation thus treats the e2periene of an 'doate at the
ar and the period of judiia offie hed +- him at par.
,) The $ud"es% who are appointed under 'rtie 1*()(a)
+ein" mem+ers of the $udiia 0erie% een if the- sere as a
$ud"e of the !i"h #ourt for on- one or two -ears% "et fu
pension +enefits +eause of the appia+iit- of Rue
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
12/19Page 12
do not "et simiar +enefit of fu pension% whih is ar+itrar-
and disriminator-.
1) 0etion 17 of the !#$ 't and #ause of Part I of the
4irst 0hedue whih "oerns the pension pa-a+e to $ud"es
"ies rise to unequa onsequenes. The e2istin" sheme
treats unequa- the equas% whih is ioatie of 'rties 17
and 1 of the #onstitution of India.
) To remoe the a+oe disrimination% in the #hief
$usties #onferene hed on 'pri 6 and
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
13/19Page 13
0# 1 and All India )udges Asso$iation s. Union of
India% 'IR 155 0# 75 wherein the requirement of
independene of the judiiar- hae +een underined as aso
two deisions ited a+oe i.e. Kuldip Singh %supra'andAll
India Young a!"ers# Asso$iation %supra'.
7) ;hen persons who oupied the #onstitutiona Offie of
$ud"e% !i"h #ourt retire% there shoud not +e an-
disrimination with re"ard to the fi2ation of their pension.
Irrespetie of the soure from where the $ud"es are drawn%
the- must +e paid the same pension just as the- hae +een
paid same saaries and aowanes and perks as serin"
$ud"es. On- pratiin" 'doates who hae attained
eminene are inited to aept $ud"eship of the !i"h #ourt.
eause of the status of the offie of !i"h #ourt $ud"e% the
responsi+iities and duties attahed to the offie% hard- an-
adoate of distintion deines the offer. Thou"h it ma- +e
a "reat finania sarifie to a suessfu aw-er to aept
$ud"eship% it is the desire to sere the soiet- and the hi"h
presti"e attahed to the offie and the respet the offie
ommands that prope a suessfu aw-er to aept
13
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
14/19Page 14
$ud"eship. The e2periene and knowed"e "ained +- a
suessfu aw-er at the ar an neer +e onsidered to +e
ess important from an- point of iew is3a3is the e2periene
"ained +- a judiia offier. If the serie of a judiia offier
is ounted for fi2ation of pension% there is no aid reason as
to wh- the e2periene at ar annot +e treated as equiaent
for the same purpose.
6) The fi2ation of hi"her pension to the $ud"es drawn from
the 0u+ordinate $udiiar- who hae sered for shorter period
in ontradistintion to $ud"es drawn from the ar who hae
sered for on"er period with ess pension is hi"h-
disriminator- and +reah of 'rtie 17 of the #onstitution.
The assifiation itsef is unreasona+e without an- e"a-
aepta+e ne2us with the o+jet sou"ht to +e ahieed.
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
15/19Page 15
the offie of $ud"eship. ;hen apa+e aw-ers do not show
inination towards $ud"eship% the quait- of justie deines.
*) In most of the 0tates% the $ud"eship of the !i"h #ourt is
offered to adoates who are in the a"e "roup of 6,366
-ears% sine pre3eminene at the ar is ahieed norma- at
that a"e. 'fter remainin" at the top for a few -ears% a
suessfu aw-er ma- show inination to aept $ud"eship%
sine that is the umination of the desire and o+jetie of
most of the aw-ers. ;hen persons hodin" onstitutiona
offie retire from serie% makin" disrimination in the
fi2ation of their pensions dependin" upon the soure from
whih the- were appointed is in +reah of 'rties 17 and
1
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
16/19Page 16
#ourt $ud"es is har"ed on the #onsoidated 4und of India
under 'rtie 11()(d)(iii) of the #onstitution.
5) In the i"ht of what is disussed% we aept the
petitioners9 aim and deare that for pensionar- +enefits%
ten -ears9 pratie as an adoate +e added as a quaif-in"
serie for $ud"es eeated from the ar. 4urther% in order to
remoe ar+itrariness in the matter of pension of the $ud"es
of the !i"h #ourts eeated from the ar% the reiefs% as
mentioned a+oe are to +e rekoned from ,1.,7.,,7% the
date on whih 0etion 1' was inserted +- the !i"h #ourt
and 0upreme #ourt $ud"es (0aaries and #onditions of
0erie) 'mendment 't% ,,6 (7< of ,,6). Requisite
amendment +e arried out in the !i"h #ourt $ud"es Rues%
156< with re"ard to post3retira +enefits as has +een done in
reation to the retired $ud"es of the 0upreme #ourt in terms
of amendment arried out +- Rue of the 0upreme #ourt
$ud"es Rues% 1565.
C&&7 A7 N*'.424!#424$ *- 2014(A%&'& *+, *- S.L.P. (C) N*'. $55!#$55$ *- 2010
,) Geae "ranted.
16
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
17/19
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
18/19Page 18
) It is +rou"ht to our notie that in pursuane of the said
Resoution% most of the 0tates in the ountr- hae e2tended
arious post3retira +enefits to the retired #hief $usties and
retired $ud"es of the respetie !i"h #ourts. - F.O.Es.Ho.
@ dated 1
8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors
19/19
that the 0tates who hae not so far framed suh sheme wi
formuate the same% dependin" on the oa onditions% for
the +enefit of the retired #hief $usties and retired $ud"es of
the respetie !i"h #ourts as ear- as possi+e prefera+-
within a period of si2 months from the date of reeipt of op-
of this order.
6) ' the ;rit Petitions and the appeas are disposed of on
the a+oe terms. In iew of the disposa of the writ petitions%
no orders are required in the interention appiation.
.MM.MMMMMMMMMM#$I.(P. SATHASIVAM)
MMMM.MMMMMMMMMM$.(RANJAN GOGOI)
MMMM.MMMMMMMMMM$.(N.V. RAMANA)
H=; A=G!I>E'R#! 1% ,17.
19