Judge Who Resigned Also Entitled To Pension Benefits As Judge Who Retired : Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has observed that the 'resignation' of a High Court Judge constitutes 'retirement' under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act 1954 and thus a judge who resigned from services would also be entitled to the same pensionary benefits as a judge who retired by superannuation.A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre allowed the plea of Pushpa Ganediwala, a former Additional Judge of the High Court, for a grant of pension. Ganediwala challenged the order of Registrar (Original Side), High Court, Bombay dated 02.11.2022, which held that she was not entitled to pension. Ganediwala contended that the expression 'retirement' under Sections 14 and 15 of High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 cannot be construed in a narrow and limited sense so as to only mean retirement by way of superannuation. She argued that retirement includes resignation as well. On the other hand, the respondent authorities submitted that the resignation by a High Court Judge results in forfeiture of a claim of pension and that 'retirement' used in Section 14 and 15 of the Act does not include resignation. It was argued that 'resignation' connotes unwillingness to continue in employment, thus it cannot be equated with 'retirement.'The High Court agreed with the petitioner and held that the expression 'retirement' used in Sections 14 and 15(1) of the Act, 1954 includes 'resignation' as well.The Court noted that the word 'retirement' is a word of wide import. It stated “The same means the conclusion of a career. One of the meanings of the word 'retire' is to 'resign'.”It observed that if the legislature intended to provide pensions only to judges who retired on superannuation, it would have expressly mentioned it. It was of the view that 'retirement' under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act has not been restricted to only mean superannuation. “From careful scrutiny of Section 14 and 15 of 1954 Act, it is evident that the entitlement of a judge to pension is on his retirement and the same includes an involuntary act as well inasmuch as retirement on account of ill-health is as contemplated by clause 14(c) of 1956 Act is an involuntary act. The resignation as well as the retirement, both result in the conclusion of the service career. In fact the resignation is one of the modes of retirement from service and is a voluntary act. In case the Legislature intended to confine the benefits of pension only to a Judge who has retired on superannuation, it would have expressly said so. The word 'retirement' in Sections 14 and 15 of 1954 Act has not been used in a restricted sense to mean retirement on superannuation only.”Noting that 'retirement' has been used in a broader sense in the Act, the Court stated that the mode of retirement for pension is irrelevant. “The criteria of entitlement to pension is retirement and mode of retirement for pension is irrelevant for the purpose of Section 14 and 15(1) of 1954 Act.”The Court also noted that 5 former judges of the Court who had tendered their resignations are being paid the pension and no explanation has been offered by the respondent-authorities for denying it to Ganediwala. The Court thus quashed the impugned order and held that Ganediwala was entitled to pension with effect from 14 February 2022. Case title: Pushpa W/O Virendra Ganediwala vs. High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay Through Registrar General (WP/15018/2023)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 93Click Here To Read/Download Order

Judge Who Resigned Also Entitled To Pension Benefits As Judge Who Retired : Bombay High Court

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags