In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that the resignation of a High Court Judge qualifies as retirement for the purpose of pension benefits. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre, quashed the Bombay High Court Registry’s decision denying pension to former judge Pushpa Ganediwala, who had resigned before completing her tenure.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Pushpa w/o Virendra Ganediwala, was initially appointed as a District Judge on October 26, 2007. She was later elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on February 13, 2019, for a two-year term. The Central Government extended her tenure for another year until February 12, 2022. However, she tendered her resignation on February 11, 2022, which was later accepted and notified by the Ministry of Law and Justice on March 14, 2023.
Following her resignation, Ganediwala applied for pension benefits, citing her combined service as a District Judge and High Court Judge, totaling over 14 years. However, the Registrar (Original Side) of the Bombay High Court, relying on opinions from the Ministry of Law & Justice, Principal Accountant General, and Advocate General of Maharashtra, denied her claim, stating that resignation did not qualify as retirement under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (1954 Act).
Legal Issues and Arguments
Senior Advocates Sunil Manohar and Nikhil Sakhardande, appearing for the petitioner, argued that a High Court Judge holds a constitutional office, and their pension must be determined in accordance with constitutional provisions rather than service jurisprudence. They contended that the term retirement under Sections 14 and 15 of the 1954 Act is broad enough to include resignation and that excluding judges who resign from pension benefits was discriminatory.
The petitioner also presented information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which revealed that five former Bombay High Court judges who had resigned were receiving pensions. The petitioner contended that denying her pension was arbitrary and unfair.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar, representing the Bombay High Court, argued that resignation and retirement are distinct concepts, and pension benefits should only be extended to judges who retire in the conventional sense—either through superannuation or due to ill health. The State Government also supported this stance, adopting the Advocate General’s opinion that resignation results in the forfeiture of pension rights.
Court’s Ruling and Key Observations
The Division Bench, after a thorough analysis of constitutional provisions and past precedents, ruled in favor of the petitioner. It held that:
The term retirement is not defined restrictively under the 1954 Act and must be interpreted broadly to include resignation.
The resignation of a judge is merely one mode of concluding judicial service, and denying pension on this basis is unjust.
The government’s reliance on UCO Bank & Ors. vs. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412 was misplaced, as that case dealt with service rules that explicitly provided for forfeiture of past service upon resignation, whereas no such provision exists in the 1954 Act.
The court also noted that five other former judges had received pensions despite resigning, questioning the inconsistency in the respondents’ stance.
Significant Observation:
“Resignation, like superannuation or retirement due to ill health, brings an end to judicial service. To deny pensionary benefits solely on the ground of resignation would be contrary to the intent of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and the principles of equality.”
The court set aside the November 2, 2022, decision of the Bombay High Court Registry and directed the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from February 14, 2022, along with 6% interest per annum, payable within two months.
