The Supreme Court has affirmed that all High Court judges constitute a homogeneous class of officeholders and, therefore, are entitled to identical service benefits, including pension, without any form of discrimination.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, was hearing a matter related to the pending salaries of Patna High Court judges and also on the issue of the fixation of pensions for judicial officers.

It was brought in the Court’s notice that High Court judges promoted from the district judiciary under the New Pension Scheme were entitled to lower pension and provident fund benefits compared to their counterparts elevated from the bar.

The court questioned how judges of different High Courts can be given different pensions.

"Article 216 does not distinguish on how High Court judges are appointed. Once appointed to the High court, all judges rank to par. Institution of the High Court consists of Chief Justice and all other judges appointed and no distinction can be made on payment of salaries or for other benefits," the Court said.

In September, the Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to release the outstanding salary of Patna High Court judge Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra, who had not received his salary for ten months due to the lack of a General Provident Fund (GPF) account.

The Court stated that any distinction in service benefits would undermine the principle of homogeneity among High Court judges.

The Court further added that "Thus there can be no difference in payment of salaries or other benefits for judges just like that of civil servants. The salaries are derived from the consolidated fund of States. Pensions are charged from the Consolidated Fund of India. The principle of non discrimination applies to how sitting and former judges are to be treated ...,"

Thus, the Court held the following:

• High Court are constitutional institutions and all judges partake as upholders of constitutional offices.
• Neither Article 221(1) nor Article 221(2) of the constitution contemplates that any discrimination can be made on the salaries being drawn by them.
• Once appointed to High Court, all judges form part of one homogenous class of office holders.
• There is an intrinsic relation between judicial independence and financial independence.
• Any determination of service benefits to sitting judges and retiral benefits payable to them as pension must be without any discrimination.
• Seeking to make any such distinction shall be unconstitutional.

Case Title: Justice Shailendra Singh And Ors. v. UoI And Ors., WP(C) No. 232/2023

Advocate For Petitioner(s): Adv. Prem Prakash

Advocate For Respondent(s): Adv. Gautam Narayan, Adv. Arvind Kumar Sharma & ors

(For more updates, tap to join us on Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn)