Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

The Judges’ pension case : Much needed respite and setting of a great precedence

Many murmurs have been heard regarding the landmark decision of the Supreme Court granting pension to Judges of the High Court elevated from the bar at par with those who are elevated from judicial service. Some have remarked that the judges have granted themselves the benefit of “one rank one pension”.

This is pure negative appreciation of the subject and also not in the correct perspective.

Many would not know the genesis of the issue. Judges of our High Courts who are elevated from the bar face acute discrimination vis-a-vis those appointed from the quota of judicial service/district judges. So much so, that Judges elevated after long standing practice at the bar and with long service on the Bench were getting much lower pensions than those Judges who were from the quota of judicial service and who may have spent a minuscule period on the Bench as compared to the former. This discrimination was unique to High Court judges and this is what was the source of the controversy before the Supreme Court and has consequently been struck down.

Also, as is well known, for post-2006 pensioners the system of linkage of length of service with amount of pension has been abrogated for all central government employees and they are now entitled to 50% of basic pay drawn at the time of retirement as their pension as soon as they complete the requisite qualification of earning a pension under the rules, irrespective of the length of service. Prior to 2006 of course there was a requirement of 33 years’ service for earning full pension. However, what is not known to the public at large is the fact that the said stipulation of abrogation of linkage of length of service with amount of pension was not graciously extended to High Court judges and the pension of High Court judges, including those retiring after 01-01-2006, was linked with the years on the bench, which of course was discriminatory on the face of it.

Yes, the Supreme Court has remarked that there should be one-rank one-pension for pensioners retiring from constitutional posts also. And why not? Officers of the rank of Secretary to Govt of India and above on the civil side and Officers of the rank of Lt Gen (Army Commander grade) and above on the military side who retire from a fixed scale are in receipt of one-rank one-pension by default, so why not High Court judges who are in the same pay-grade and actually placed on a higher article in the Warrant of Precedence?

A very fine judgement that should pave way for resolution of anomalies for other categories of pensioners.


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

OROP is acceptable when a small no is affected. However its implementation to all Military offrs is a considerable budget outgo, and therefore the reluctance notwithstanding early retirement and No lateral absorption etc. whatsoever.

Natarajan V said...

WELCOME ..... BUT STILL-Why this vague expression "ONE-RANK-ONE-PENSION" ...Because even JUDGNENTS ARE NOT LEADING TO CORRECT IMPLEMENTATION....some judgments have decried that PAST PENSIONERS CAN NOT DEMAND SAME REVISED PAY SCALES AS IF THEY ARE STILL INSERVICE....so objective should be well defined....must be FORMULATED TO BE A UNIFORM RATIO OF THE LAST PAY DRAWN IN THE SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST HELD BY THE PENSIONER AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT WITH THE LIBERALISED QUALIFYING SERVICE , IRRESPECTIVE OF DATE OF RETIREMENT/ CUT OFF DATE,IN ACCORDANCE WITH A FITMENT/ CONCORDANCE TABLE THAT MAY BE EVOLVED APPLICABLE TO OLD PENSIONERS AS WELL AS WOULD BE PENSIONERS/ EMPLOYEES ETC SUBJECT TO A THRESH-HOLD LEVEL OF AN UNIFORM MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. ... Applying SUCH A FITMENT to OLD RETIRED Hon Judges , one will see suo moto it will result in what they desire- totally abiding to the ARTICLE 14-all old judges shall get same pension... IN FACT THIS WILL BE SOMETHING LIKE ONE STAGE- ONE RANK-ONE PENSION as per a common FITMENT TABLE......

Anonymous said...

anonymous said: dear navdeep, eventhough this mail is not related to the above matter, ur immediate action is requested on this mail: navys own website & defence ministries latest advts showing commanders of navy / lt cols of army etc. r placed under pay band- 4 .but in a advt calling for officer entry in navy it was advertised that commanders r placed in pay band PB-4A repeat PB-4A . all of sudden how a new pay band come in to, that to after announcement of 7th pay commission.if left unnoticed,there is possibility that thay r not in PB 4. pl get the information under RTI act, who is responsible for for creation of new pay band called PB-4A.

WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) said...

Dear maj. Navdeep, how come there is no update on anything for the last 15 days. we eagerly look fwd your blogs.
v.sundaresan