Supreme Court highlights meagre pension given to district judges; asks AG, SG to find way out

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, August 8

Highlighting the meagre pension given to district judges, the Supreme Court on Thursday urged Attorney General R Venkkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to sit together with amicus curiae K Parmeswar and find a way out at the earliest.

During hearing on All India Judges Association’s petition seeking implementation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) on the payment of arrears of pension and other retirement benefits to judicial officers, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud pointed out that problem didn’t get resolved even if district judges were elevated to high courts.

"District judges are only getting Rs 15,000 as pension. District judges come to high courts and generally they are elevated to high courts at the age of 56 and 57 years and they retire with pension of Rs 30,000 per month," said the Bench which also included Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

"Some of these are extremely hard cases, we have a slew of petitions by district judges who come to the High Court. We tell district judges that for every year of service we will get Rs 96,000 which is Rs 8,000 a month. Now typically what happens is that the district judges come to the High Court for anywhere between 56-58 years. They get paid Rs 8,000 a month and then they retire with a pension of Rs 25,000-30,000 a month,” the CJI told the top law officers.

"We, being the guardian of the district judiciary, urge you (Venkkataramani and Mehta) to sit together with the amicus curiae and find a way out," the CJI said, after the Attorney General sought time to present the Government’s case.

"Please deal with the Judiciary in a different way and it’s not that you become 60-year-old and do something else ... We are conscious of the financial implications in other segments. But handle this differently. This is about the district judiciary… you see," CJI Chandrachud said.

"Since it has fallen from the Bench, we will definitely look into it," Mehta assured the Bench which deferred the hearing to August 27.

"Look at their social profile also... they are not going to get commercial work as arbitrators…," the CJI said, adding after retirement they can’t go for the legal practice at that age.

Amicus curiae Parmeswar submitted that several states have complied with the SNJPC recommendations and that they have started filing compliance affidavits.

On July 11, the Supreme Court had summoned chief secretaries and finance secretaries of 21 states/UTs, including those of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh for failing to clear the arrears of revised salary and pension of judicial officers in terms of SNJPC recommendations.

It had directed them to remain personally present before it with compliance affidavits on August 23. "We know how to extract compliance now. If we just say that the chief secretary will be present if the affidavit is not filed then it will not be filed. We are not sending them to jail but let them be here and then an affidavit will be submitted. Let them be personally present now," it had said.

"The chief secretaries and finance secretaries have to be personally present. Failing compliance, the court will be constrained to initiate contempt," it had warned.

The other 18 states/UTs whose chief secretaries and finance secretaries were ordered to be personally appear before it were -- Delhi, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Orissa, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Tripura, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram.

It had directed all the defaulting states to file compliance reports by August 20 and asked their chief secretaries and finance secretaries to appear personally on August 23.

Expressing strong displeasure over the failure of states to implement SNJPC recommendations, the Bench had made clear that it will not grant any further extensions.

On January 4, it had asked high courts to set up a two-judge committee each to oversee the implementation of its orders on pay, pension and other retirement benefits for judicial officers in terms of the Commission’s recommendations and clear all dues on or before February 29, 2024.

Maintaining that there’s a need to maintain uniformity in service conditions of judicial officers across India, the top court had said Judicial independence -- necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of common citizens in the rule of law -- can be ensured and enhanced only so long as judges were able to lead their life with a sense of financial dignity.