Parity Of High Court Judges' Pension: Supreme Court To Hear Pleas In Second Week of January, 2023

At the outset, the Bench comprising CJI, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Dutta noted that the matter would require 'a little hearing because High Court judges who are appointed from subordinate judiciary are seeking pension as per judges of High Court elevated from the Bar'.

In one of the matters, wherein the retired judge was suffering from cancer and was not getting paid the pension amount, the Senior Advocate, Mr. Ajay Tewari representing the said judge informed the Bench that the Union of India had filed an application in the matter to stay payment of pension, till the issue is decided.

The CJI told the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, that the Court will not grant the application for stay. He reckoned that the Apex Court would decide the issue on merits to settle the position of law, but, in the meantime, the Union Government should not stop payment of pension of the petitioner who had served as the District Court.

"Mr. Natraj, your application for stay, we will not entertain. We will decide the correct position of law. But in the meantime why shouldn't you pay? They have all served as District Judges."

The CJI said that the matter would be listed for hearing immediately after the re-opening.

"We will list it immediately upon reopening, We will list it for hearing, that would be a better thing to do. We will keep it in the second week and resolve this."

The Senior Counsel for the petitioner apprised the Bench that though the judge is getting pension of District Judge and Dearness Allowance of District Judge, the Union Government has stated that the dearness allowance is as received by a judge of the High Court and has issued a recovery notice in this regard.

The CJI asked the ASG not to make the recoveries pending further orders of the Court.

"Don't make any recoveries against her pending further others of the Court."

[Case Title: Justice M Vijayaraghavan v. Union of India WP(C) No. 993/2017]