History and Development

HISTORY OF LITIGATION BY ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS OF INDIA AGAINST UNION OF INDIA/STATES FOR PENSION AND POST- RETIRAL BENEFITS INCLUDING MEDICAL FACILITIES TO RETIRED HIGH COURT JUDGES AND WHAT RECEIVED

[FROM 2001 to 2025]

The President of the Association, Mr. Justice J.K.Ranka, has requested me to pen down a short history of litigation by the Association against the Union of India for the website of the Association.

FORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION

Justice D.K. BASU of Calcutta High Court (now late), a very agile and industrious person, in the year 2000, had formed an Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of India. He had widely travelled in many states to enroll its members. He came to Delhi to hold a meeting on a fixed date. He met many retired judges residing in Delhi to make them members.

The meeting was held under the chairmanship of (now late) Mr. Justice A.M.Ahmadi, former Chief Justice of India. The meeting was attended by 46 retired judges.

It was resolved to frame Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association and to get the Association registered. The Association was registered in the year 2001. In the first Executive Committee of the Association, Justice A.M.Ahmadi was made the founder President and D.K.Basu was made the founder Secretary General.

Entire credit for singlehandedly creating and establishing this Association for the first time goes to Justice D.K. Basu (now Late)

ON LITIGATION

Justice Ms. Shobha Dikshit and myself(Justice A.k.Srivastava) were founder Office Bearers of the Association. We knew each other well from before being contemporary in Lucknow University as well as her father and my father were judges in Uttar Pradesh State and were great friends. In one of our meetings, in what context I don’t remember, Justice Dikshit had casually told me about her pension amount. I was surprised as it was much less than mine, being Service Judge. I had kept quiet then, but how that difference was my anxiety? Therefore, I went through the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act and the Rules made thereunder and found that there were two sets of provisions for pension, one for those elevated from the Bar and the other for those elevated from the Judicial Services. For the same post with fixed salary, I was of the view that the provisions were discriminatory.

Though the Rules provided some perks to the sitting judges but they were not reflected in the pension.

Further in the Rules, I had found that for medical facilities the retired High Court judges, including Chief Justices, were equated to those of a Joint Secretary of Union Government despite our salary being equal to that of the Secretary of the Union Government.

I had discussed both the aforesaid three issues with Justice Dikshit and had proposed for filing Writ Petitions by the Association to challenge the aforesaid grey provisions of the Act and Rules. She had agreed with me.

Therefore, in a meeting of the Executive Committee of our Association, we both had raised the issues and had proposed to file two Writ Petitions by the Association - one to seek one pension for one office and for post retiral benefits and the other for respectful medical facilities. On pension my plea was that if for appointment of Judges of High Courts there are two sources – one from the judicial service and the other from the Bar and there is same fixed salary for both sources on appointment as Judges of High Court, then why should there be two different rules for fixation of pension for them. The classification made appeared to arbitrary. Further, it was found that full pension was entitled to only those Bar Judges whose qualifying service was 12 years or more. Such judges used to be very few. Pension of the remaining judges varied as per their number of qualifying period. For the medical facilities, we had pressed for respectful provision in the Rules.

But in the meeting, on the basis of objects of the Association in the Memorandum of Association, the view came that since we were givers and not seekers, no trade union activity. We had then requested to defer the matter for the next meeting. In the next meeting, we had read out the objects of the Association which included “welfare of the judicial fraternity”. Then the Executive Committee took a decision to get formats of the requested two Writ Petitions first and then desirability of filing of Writ Petitions would be considered. Mr. Justice M.N.Rao, former Chief Justice of High Court, was assigned the job of drafting the formats.

Six months passed with no drafts.

Therefore, two formats were drafted by Justice Dikshit and me and were circulated in advance to all the members of the Executive Committee so that they come prepared in the next meeting. In the next meeting we got approval of the Executive Committee. Then we approached AOR, Mr. P.C. Parekh, who was friend of Justice Dikshit, as they both were AORs, to draft the petitions and file the same in the Supreme Court.

He drafted and filed the writ Petitions in the Supreme Court in the year 2002 without charging any fee and expenses. They were listed and notices were issued.

Later we found that on the similar matter, a Writ Petition No.521 of 2002 P. Ramakrishnam Raju v Union of India had already been filed.

Our Writ Petitions 523 & 524 of 2002, thus, were consolidated with the aforesaid Writ Petition 521 of 2002.

The Consolidated Petitions remained pending as no Bench was serious for the reliefs claimed in our Petitions.

After filing of our petitions, Justice Kuldip Singh, a directly appointed judge of the Supreme Court from the Bar, had filed two Writ Petitions, one for full pension and the other for medical facilities at par with those of the sitting Judges. The Government, itself, gave reliefs to all directly appointed Supreme Court Judges from the Bar by amending the Act and Rules in the year 2005.

We then got encouraged and based on the fundamental right of equality under article 14 of the Constitution, we had amended our petitions and had sought parity with what was given to retired Judges of Supreme Court who were elevated directly from the Bar.

Since some states had given to the retired judges of their respective High Courts some post-retiral benefits, we had collected their respective notifications, whatever we could get, and had filed the same in the Registry of the Supreme Court. State of Andhra Pradesh Notification was one of them.

In the year 2014, Mr. P.C. Parekh, our AOR, had got the writs listed for hearing when the pleadings were completed. The date, I don’t remember. Then Justice V.S.Dave was the President of the Association and I was the Secretary General staying in Lucknow, my home town.

Mr. P.P.Rao, Senior Advocate and Constitutional expert, was engaged to argue from our side. Justice V.S. Dave, had requested me to go to Delhi to brief Mr. P.P Rao. I went to Delhi but on reaching there Justice S.K.Agrawal, a former Judge of Delhi High Court, informed me that Shri P.P.Rao had already been briefed.

The writs were heard on the next date and the judgment was reserved.

From our side Shri P.P Rao, a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court had argued without taking fee and expenses. It is pertinent to mention that none had appeared for Ramakrishna Raju, the petitioner in Writ No, 521 of 2002. I was present in the Court.

Judgment was pronounced in open Court on 31.3. 2014. We got all the reliefs prayed for.

The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced as under:

“29. In the light of what is discussed, we accept the petitioners’ claim and declare that for pensionary benefits, ten years’ practice as an Advocate be added as a qualifying service for judges elevated from the Bar. Further, in order to remove arbitrariness in the matter of pension of the judges of High Courts elevated from the Bar, the reliefs as mentioned as mentioned above are to be reckoned from 01.4.2004, the date on which section 13A was inserted by the High court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2005 (46 of 2005). Requisite amendment be carried out in the High Court Judges Rules, 1956 with regard to retiral benefits as has been done in relation to retired judges of the Supreme Court in terms of amendment carried out by Rule 38 of the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959.”

For medical facilities, the Court had directed that the retired High Court judges shall be given same facilities as are available to the sitting judges of High Court.

“For the post-retiral benefits the Court had observed as under:-

“ In the conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices held on 18.9.2004, the following Resolution was passed:-

“18. Augmenting of post-retiral benefits of Judges.

As regards post –retiral benefits to the retired judges of High Courts, the scheme sanctioned by Andhra Pradesh be adopted and followed in all the States except where better benefits are already available.”

Thereafter, the Bench had observed and ordered as under:-

“While appreciating the steps taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already formulated such scheme, by this order we hope and trust that the States who have not done so far will formulate the same, depending on the local conditions, for the benefit of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts as far as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

Despite our continuous approach to the Central Government and by some of our State Chapters’ approaches to their respective States for implementation of the judgement of SC, there was silence from Central Governments and the States. As such a proposal for filing contempt petition was made in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Association but the Committee was reluctant to file it.

When one year limitation period for filing Contempt Petition was expiring on 30.3.2015, Justice M.R Calla, who was looking after our writs locally had talked on the matter to the then President, Justice V.S.Dave, who was living in Jaipur.

Justice Dave, with his wide contacts and resources, was all out to help the constructive activities of the Association from the very beginning, immediately gave permission to Justice Calla to draft the Contempt Petition and file. He had drafted the petition and had talked me to come over to Delhi to sign the Contempt Petition. Since I was out of country, I had suggested to him to file it with the signatures of any of the Office Bearers of the Executive Committee of the Association, living in Delhi.

Later, I got information that the Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 524-526 in WP (C) 523-524/2002 by Justice V.S Dave against Kusumjit Sindhu (Secretary, Justice Department of UOI) and others was filed in the Supreme Court under signatures of Justice V.S.Dave , the then President of the Association, as the Office bearers staying in Delhi were, perhaps, reluctant to sign.

Notices were prepared by Justice Calla and sent to Union of India and all the States.

Upon filing of the Contempt Petition, the Central Government gave relief to the retired Bar Judges in the matter of their pension w.e.f from 1.4.2004.

Arrears amounting to several lacs of rupees were individually received by the retired Bar Judges. Some of them got between Rs.50 to 90 lacs.

For domestic allowance, Chief Secretaries were grilled by the Contempt Bench to come with scheme with effect from 1.4.2014.

On Medical facilities, after hearing the Government of India, CBDT, the several States and High courts, the Contempt Bench had, by its order dated 24.10.2018, directed all the States to give as under:

All facilities at par with sitting judges for medical;
Reimbursement for medical treatments in private hospital without prior approval of the State GOVERNMENT;
Sanctioning authority to be the Registrar General of the High Court;
Reimbursement to be provided for treatment taken in any other State; and
Cashless facility.

Except Cashless facility (on some constraints), I understand that all the States are abiding by the aforesaid 1 to 4 directions.

Our Contempt case is continuing and Applications are being moved before the Contempt Bench for reliefs. Mr. P.H. Parekh, a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court, had and been appearing in every hearing on our behalf, without charging any fee.

Whatever reliefs we have got so far and may get further from the Contempt Bench goes to the good offices of Justice M.R. Calla (now late) and Justice V.S.Dave, one of our Patrons now. Had they not filed the Contempt Petition within the period of limitation, we would have been reduced to the mercy of the Central Government with representations as beggars. The judgment in our favour, in my opinion, would have then been restricted only in the Law Journals without any action from the opposite parties.

Before parting I may inform the members that despite final orders from Supreme Court in our favour in a matter we could not get the relief. While I was functioning as President of the Association from 2018 to 2022, in the year 2020, I was informed that one of the members of our Association, Justice V.D.Gyani, now late (who, in my opinion, was ज्ञानी in real sense and not by surname only) had obtained a judicial order dated 15.3.2018 in his WP 4224 of 2016 from Gauhati High Court seeking a direction to the respondents Union of India and others to pay him 20 % additional quantum of pension on his basic monthly pension w.e.f. 30-07-2015 i.e. from the first day of his entering into the 80th year of his age.

The Hon’ble High Court, on the basis of principles of interpretation of Statutes, and quoting the book written by Justice G.P.Singh, a former Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Interpretation of Statutes, had interpreted that the word “from” in a year would mean “from the start of the year and not from the end of the year”.

Appeal against that judgment was filed by The Union Government in the Supreme Court but it had been dismissed in limine by order dated 8.7.2019.

Since the direction in Justice V..D. Gyani writ petition was in personam and not in generis, it was decided by me to file similar Writ Petition by the Association for all the retired judges.

With the cooperation of former judges, Justice I.S.Srivastava and Justice Samvastar, staying in the city of Indore, a Writ Petition no. 15461 of 2020 was filed in Madhya Pradesh High Court. After hearing the parties it was allowed by order dated 3.12.2020 and required directions were given to the Respondents.

We had then approached the Justice Department of GOI to comply with the directions and to direct the Pension Authorities to issue necessary directions as the matter was final in view of the fact that their appeal against the judgment and order in V.D.Gyani’s writ petition had already been dismissed in the year 2019. Copies of all the aforesaid judgments were given to the Justice Department. In personal approach by me with Secretary of Justice Department thereafter it was informed that the matter was under consideration. Thereafter, we came to know that the Association of Central Government Employees, on the basis of the judgments in our favor, had approached the Central Government for the same relief to the Central Government employees.

One fine morning I came to know that by amendment in the Act, an Explanation was inserted in the relevant section with retrospective effect that the word and figure “from 80” meant after completing the age of 80.

I was approached by many members that a Writ Petition should be filed against the aforesaid amendment in the Act. Since I felt that the Legislature had paramount power to amend any provision of the Act, even with retrospective effect, unless it violates any provision of the Constitution, may not succeed I had requested them to let me know the legal grounds to assail the amendment but I did not get response from any of them. However, since the decision was to be of the Association, I had put the matter for discussion in one of the agenda in the AGM to be held in April 2022 which also included election of Office bearers and members of the Executive Committee. In that AGM it was resolved to put the matter of challenge to the said amendment in the next AGM. After that new Executive Committee was elected. Therefore, I am not aware of the future course of action in the matter taken by the newly elected Executive Committee of the Association.

Justice A.K.Srivastava

One of the Patrons of the Association

14.9.2026

Note.- Since, presently, I am in Shimla to beat heat and moisture of Lucknow, this paper has been typed by me on my Laptop. Typing errors may be ignored as sometimes errors become more visible than the contents of the paper.