Supreme Court Denies Higher Pension Benefits to Retired Acting Chief Justice

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the pensionary benefits of an Acting Chief Justice in the case of K. Sreedhar Rao v. Union of India. The case involved whether an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court is entitled to the same pension as a permanent Chief Justice.

Background of the Case

K. Sreedhar Rao, the petitioner, retired as the Acting Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court on October 20, 2015. He was initially appointed as a judge in the Karnataka High Court in 2000 and later transferred to the Gauhati High Court. On August 13, 2014, he was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court under Article 223 of the Constitution and served in that position for 14 months.

Upon retirement, he applied for pensionary benefits equivalent to those of a retired Chief Justice. The Union Government, however, denied his claim, stating that he was only entitled to the pension of a High Court judge. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Kailash Vasdev, made the following arguments:

• As per Part D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution, the salary and perks of an Acting Chief Justice are equivalent to those of a permanent Chief Justice.
• Section 2(1)(a) and Section 2(1)(g) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1954 Act’) include an Acting Chief Justice under the definition of ‘Chief Justice.’
• Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act states that service as an Acting Chief Justice should be treated as service rendered as Chief Justice for pension purposes.
• The petitioner was paid the salary and allowances of a Chief Justice while in service; therefore, he should receive the pension accordingly.
• In past precedents, judicial service as Acting Chief Justice has been equated with that of a permanent Chief Justice.

Arguments of the Respondent (Union of India)

The Union Government, represented by Senior Advocate V. Mohana, made the following counterarguments:

• The petitioner applied for pension under Part III of the 1954 Act, which applies to judges who held pensionable posts under the Union or a State and did not elect to receive the pension of a Chief Justice.
• Part D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution only ensures salary parity between an Acting Chief Justice and a Chief Justice during service and does not extend to pensionary benefits.
• An Acting Chief Justice is appointed under Article 223 of the Constitution, which is distinct from a permanent Chief Justice appointed under Article 217.
• The precedent cited by the petitioner does not apply, as the cases involved different factual scenarios where the judge had retired as a puisne judge and not as an Acting Chief Justice.
• The petitioner’s claim contradicts the principles laid down in the case of Union of India v. Syad Sarwar Ali (1998) 9 SCC 426, where the Supreme Court held that an Acting Chief Justice cannot be equated with a permanent Chief Justice for pension purposes.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Applicability of the 1954 Act

The Court examined Section 14 of the 1954 Act, which states that every judge shall receive a pension in accordance with the provisions in Part I of the First Schedule. However, Rule 7 of Part I only allows the inclusion of service as an Acting Chief Justice for computation purposes and does not equate an Acting Chief Justice with a permanent Chief Justice.

“Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act specifically provides that for the purpose of computation of pension, service as an Acting Chief Justice shall be treated as service rendered as Chief Justice. However, this does not mean that the overall pensionary benefits shall be the same.”

2. Distinction Between Chief Justice and Acting Chief Justice

The Court noted that an Acting Chief Justice is a judge performing the duties of a Chief Justice on a temporary basis when the office remains vacant. Unlike a Chief Justice appointed under Article 217, an Acting Chief Justice does not take a separate oath of office, and their tenure in that role is contingent upon the appointment of a permanent Chief Justice.

“An Acting Chief Justice appointed under Article 223 of the Constitution is merely performing the functions of the Chief Justice while the position remains vacant. This temporary nature does not entitle them to pensionary benefits equivalent to those of a Chief Justice.”

3. Precedents and Interpretation of Pension Rules

The Court referred to Union of India v. Syad Sarwar Ali, where it was held that while service as an Acting Chief Justice is considered for pension computation, it does not equate to full entitlement as a permanent Chief Justice.

“The distinction between Acting Chief Justice and Chief Justice is fundamental and cannot be overlooked. While service as an Acting Chief Justice is considered for pension computation, it does not entitle the person to the maximum pensionary benefits of a permanent Chief Justice.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, upholding the decision of the Union Government. The judgment stated:

“The petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits at par with a retired Chief Justice. His service as Acting Chief Justice can only be considered for computation purposes and not for determining overall pension benefits.”

The Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming that pension benefits are determined by statutory provisions and cannot be altered based on an individual’s claim.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for pension entitlements of judicial officers. Key takeaways include:

• Acting Chief Justices are entitled to the salary of a Chief Justice but not the full pensionary benefits.
• Pension calculations for Acting Chief Justices will include only the period served in that capacity but will not alter the final pension ceiling.
• Judges retiring as Acting Chief Justices must apply for pension under the appropriate provisions and cannot later claim Chief Justice-level benefits.
• The distinction between an Acting Chief Justice and a permanent Chief Justice is a crucial factor in determining pension entitlements.

The Supreme Court’s decision affirms that pension entitlements are governed strictly by statutory provisions, preventing claims that go beyond legislative intent.

Petitioner Name: K. Sreedhar Rao.
Respondent Name: Union of India.
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Gauhati High Court.
Judgment Date: 06-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: K. Sreedhar Rao vs Union of India Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category