Today (November 4) the Supreme Court was informed that under the New Pension Scheme, High Court judges promoted from the district judiciary will receive lesser pension and provident fund benefits compared to their colleagues promoted from the bar.

Workbench including Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra He was hearing a number of matters related to the release of salaries of Patna High Court Judges as well as the issue regarding determination of pensions of judicial officers.

Some High Court Judges approached the Supreme Court over non-payment of salaries due to closure of General Provident Fund (GPF) accounts. The issue arose after NPS contributions were transferred to the GPF accounts given to them after they were appointed as Supreme Court judges. The accountant general sought clarification from the Ministry of Law and Justice on the legality of transferring NPS contributions to GPF accounts.

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, The amicus curiae on the matter stated that as per the Union affidavit, two categories of judges have been constituted in the Patna High Court: (1) Those who have been elevated from the bar and will benefit from the Provident Fund (PF) and others receive benefits under the High Court Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Act, and (2) those who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. District Court judges who will not be elevated and will not have the right to PF.

He explained that aggrieved judges were covered under the New Pension Scheme (NPS). When the NPS was adopted for district jurisdiction two consequences emerged (1) relief funding was eliminated; (2) the scheme switched from a guaranteed pension to a contributory pension scheme in which both the judge and the government contribute to the pension. He noted that the issue had a far-reaching impact on the pensions of these judges because they could not receive a full pension like those who had been disbarred, but only on a contribution plan.

“My concern here is; “They are the first group of district judges to enter the NPS and be elevated to the Supreme Court… you will not be entitled to pensions at the same rate as your colleagues at the bar, but whatever you have contributed, that is what you will get.”

He also emphasized that many judges in the district courts are Chief Justices; hence such Chief Justices in High Courts should retire without pension and PF?

The CJI responded: “Because the members of the regional judiciary who come to the Supreme Court are in a worse situation than the bar association members who are Supreme Court judges, since they do not subscribe to the aid fund. Therefore, their years of service before being appointed as judges of the Supreme Court acts as a loophole on the authority vested in all other judges of the Supreme Court.”

Attorney General of India R Venkataramani Those present on behalf of the Union noted that these judges were governed by the NPS at the time of their appointment. However, he emphasized that it would be wrong to make a comparison or classification between Supreme Court Justices in light of the changes brought about by the Unified Pension Plan. It is noteworthy that the Unified Pension Plan was announced by the Union. On August 24th.

“To address all the concerns in the NPS, some changes are now being added to the combined pension scheme….I do not think there should be a comparison between a district judge and a disbarred judge, there cannot be a comparison”

Amicus essentially argued that: (1) The Constitution does not provide for two classes of judges. pointed out that Article 221 It deals only with the provision of salaries and pensions to Supreme Court judges as determined by Parliament, without any specificity to the PF

“This is an effective reading of Articles 216 and 221… Article 221 does not use the word ‘Provision Fund’ in the literal sense.”

Secondly, it has been argued that a judge’s constitutional position requires a holistic assessment of financial independence and that this is diluted when focusing solely on procedural technicalities.

“The point is that it (the judgeship) is a constitutional institution; it is not just about an ordinary technical interpretation of the law or the doctrine of equal pay for equal work… I am not undermining the doctrine, but there must be something bigger at play. When we talk about the financial independence of judges, it is a matter of office “It’s not a personal matter.”

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi In the brief appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners he raised three main points: (1) he explained that the class of judges was created by the constitution and that Article 14 could not be used by Parliament to make a law distinguishing between a common class – “Parliament cannot be allowed to discriminate while preparing the law; whatever needs to be done will be written to all judges in general.”

(2) close reading of the art. 221(1) provides that the scope of lawmaking is limited to the amount of salary, but there is no distinction between judges, it is only the amount of salary;

(3) The provision of Article 221 states that normally all things should be equal, but if the judge receives a higher pension than others, this will not be to his detriment.

“Sometimes it happens that district judges are promoted to HC rank after many years of service and get higher pension – you cannot change it against him.”

Specifically, the condition is as follows: “A judge’s allowances or sabbatical entitlements shall not change to his detriment after his appointment.”

The hearing will continue tomorrow.

Background

in March 2023The Apex Court has ordered the release of salaries of seven judges of the Patna High Court, which were withheld following the closure of their GPF accounts. The plea, which alleged that the General Provident Fund accounts of the seven judges were closed, was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala.

The petitioners whose GPF accounts were suspended are seven judges of the Patna High Court. The Supreme Court judges include Justices Shailendra Singh, Arun Kumar Jha, Jitendra Kumar, Alok Kumar, Sunil Dutta Mishra, Chandra Prakash Singh and Chandra Shekhar Jha. Before they rose from the State Judicial Service to the Supreme Court, they were covered by the National Pension Scheme. The issue arose after NPS contributions were transferred to the GPF accounts given to them after they were appointed as Supreme Court judges. The accountant general sought clarification from the Ministry of Law and Justice on the legality of transferring NPS contributions to GPF accounts.

In September, the Court directed the State of Bihar to immediately release the salary of Patna High Court Judge Justice RP Mishra, who has outstanding debts since his elevation to the Supreme Court.

The court ruled that “no judge should be expected to work without a salary.” He made an interim decision, taking into account the urgency.

Case Title: Justice Shailendra Singh and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) no. 232/2023 and related matters