P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    1/19Page 1

    REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 521 OF 2002

    P. Ramakrishnam Raju .... Petitioner (s)

    Versus

    Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

    WITH

    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 523 OF 2002

    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 524 OF 2002

    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3 OF 2003

    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3! OF 2003

    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4"5 OF 2005AND

    CIVIL APPEAL NOS.424!#424$ OF 2014(A%&'& *+, *- S.L.P. (C) N*'. $55!#$55$ *- 2010)

    J U D G M E N T

    P.S,/'& CJI.

    1) The main question whih arises for onsideration is

    whether !i"h #ourt $ud"es% who are appointed from the ar

    1

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    2/19Page 2

    under 'rtie 1*()(+) of the #onstitution of India% on

    retirement% are entited for an addition of 1, -ears to their

    serie for the purposes of their pension/

    ) The a+oe petitions hae +een fied +- former $ud"es of

    the arious !i"h #ourts of the ountr- as we as +- the

    'ssoiation of the Retired $ud"es of the 0upreme #ourt and

    the !i"h #ourts eeated from the ar.

    ) The petitioners hae pra-ed that the num+er of -ears

    pratied as an adoate sha +e taken into aount and

    sha +e added to the serie as a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt for

    the purpose of determinin" the ma2imum pension

    permissi+e under Part3I of the 4irst 0hedue to the !i"h

    #ourt $ud"es (0aaries and #onditions of 0erie) 't% 1567

    (in short 8the !#$ 't9). It was further stated that in respet

    of Part3III of the 4irst 0hedue% whih deas with the $ud"es

    eeated from the 0tate $udiia 0erie% amost a the $ud"es

    "et fu pension een if the- hae worked as a $ud"e of the

    !i"h #ourt for or -ears and their entire serie is added

    to their serie as a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt for omputin"

    2

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    3/19Page 3

    pension under this Part. 4or this reason% the mem+ers of the

    su+ordinate judiiar- "et more pension than the $ud"es

    eeated from the ar on retirement.

    7) In iew of the a+oe% the petitioners pra-ed that thou"h

    Part3I and Part3III $ud"es hod equiaent posts% the- are not

    simiar- situated in re"ard to pension and retirement

    +enefits whih is +reah of 'rties 17 and 1 of the

    #onstitution of India and one rank one pension must +e the

    norm in respet of a onstitutiona offie. It is further pra-ed

    that the retired $ud"es of the !i"h #ourts shoud aso +e

    "ien enhaned aowane for domesti hep:peon:drier%

    teephone e2penses and other seretaria assistane.

    6) ;e hae heard the ar"uments adaned +- earned

    ounse for the parties and perused the reords.

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    4/19Page 4

    proides for appointment of $ud"es from amon"st the

    mem+ers of the ar at a the three ees.

    *) The appointment of the $ud"es of the 0upreme #ourt is

    "oerned +- 'rtie 17()%(a)% (+) and () of the

    #onstitution. It enisa"es appointment from three soures?

    (i) from amon"st the $ud"es of the !i"h #ourt hain" serie

    of at east fie -ears> (ii) the mem+ers of the ar hain" a

    standin" of not ess than 1, -ears> and (iii) an- person% who

    is% in the opinion of the President% is a distin"uished jurist.

    @) The appointment of a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt is

    "oerned +- 'rtie 1*()(a) and (+) of the #onstitution

    whih enisa"es appointments from two different soures?

    (a) from amon"st the $udiia offiers who hae hed the

    offie for at east 1, -ears> and (+) the mem+ers of the ar%

    who hae +een 'doates of a !i"h #ourt for at east 1,

    -ears.

    5) The appointment of Aistrit $ud"es is "oerned +-

    'rtie () of the #onstitution whih proides that a

    person not aread- in the serie of the Union or of the 0tate

    4

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    5/19Page 5

    sha on- +e ei"i+e to +e appointed as a distrit jud"e if he

    has +een for not ess than seen -ears an adoate or a

    peader and is reommended +- the !i"h #ourt for

    appointment.

    1,) The 0upreme #ourt $ud"es (0aaries & #onditions of

    0erie) 't% 156@% (in short 8the 0#$ 't9)% the !#$ 't and

    the Rues made thereunder% re"uate their saar- and

    onditions of serie. The proisions under +oth the 'ts

    were simiar prior to the 'mendment 't% ,,6. The serie

    onditions of the $ud"es of the su+ordinate ourts are

    "oerned +- the 0erie Rues made under 'rtie ,5 of the

    #onstitution of India.

    11) 0etion 1 of the 0#$ 't read with #ause of Part3I of

    the 0hedue deas with the pension pa-a+e to the retired

    $ud"es of the 0upreme #ourt. 0imiar-% 0etion 17 of the !#$

    't read with #ause of Part3I of the 4irst 0hedue deas

    with the pension pa-a+e to the retired $ud"es of the !i"h

    #ourts. The proisions under +oth the 'ts were simiar prior

    to the 'mendment 't% ,,6. Reeant portion of 0etion 17

    of the !#$ 't reads as foows?

    5

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    6/19Page 6

    B14. P'&* 67 ,* J+8'.# 0u+jet to theproisions of this 't% eer- $ud"e sha% on his retirement%+e paid a pension in aordane with the sae andproisions in Part 1 of the 4irst 0hedue?

    Proided that no suh pension sha +e pa-a+e to a $ud"euness3

    a) he has ompeted not ess than twee -ears of seriefor pension> or

    +) he has attained the a"e of si2t-3two -ears> or

    ) his retirement is media- ertified to +e neessitated+- i3heath>C

    1) #ause of Part3I to the 4irst 0hedue of the said 't

    deas with the pension for the retired $ud"es of the !i"h

    #ourt% who are diret- appointed from the ar% whih reads

    as under?3

    B. 0u+jet to the other proisions of this part% the pensionpa-a+e to a $ud"e% to whom this part app- and who has

    ompeted not ess than * -ears of serie for pensionsha +e

    (a) for serie as #hief $ustie in an- !i"h #ourt%Rs.7%@5,:3 per annum for eah ompeted -ear of serie>(+) for serie as an- other $ud"e in an- !i"h #ourtRs.7%6,:3 per annum for eah ompeted -ear of serie.

    Proided that the pension under this para"raph sha in noase e2eed Rs.6%7,%,,,:3 per annum in the ase of #hief$ustie and Rs.7%@,%,,,:3 per annum in ase of an- other

    $ud"es.C

    1) The a+oe3noted #ause () of Part I of the 4irst

    0hedue impies that no pension is pa-a+e to the $ud"es

    hain" ess than * -ears of serie as a $ud"e. The a+oe

    6

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    7/19Page 7

    0etion further shows that for a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt to

    reeie fu pension +enefits% he shoud hae ompeted 1

    -ears of serie as a $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt. It is su+mitted

    that when mem+ers of the ar are offered the post of !i"h

    #ourt $ud"es% the- are "enera- at the a"e of a+out 6, -ears

    or a+oe and at the prime of their pratie% whih the- hae

    to "ie up to sere the s-stem. Therefore% man- of them are

    reutant to aept the offer as the post3retirement +enefits

    are not attratie enou"h.

    17) 0etion 1 and #ause of the 0hedue to the 0#$ 't

    earier ontained simiar prohi+ition with re"ard to the

    ei"i+iit- of pension to the $ud"es appointed from the ar as

    ontained in the !#$ 't. oth the 'ts proide that no

    pension sha +e pa-a+e to a $ud"e who has ess than *

    -ears of serie.

    16) In Kuldip Singhs. Union of India% (,,) 5 0## 1@%

    the petitioner therein% who was appointed as a $ud"e of the

    0upreme #ourt from the ar% on his retirement was denied

    the +enefit of pension as he did not fufi the requisite

    onditions. #onsequent-% he fied a ;rit Petition +efore this

    7

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    8/19Page 8

    #ourt pra-in"% inter alia,(a) to take into aount 1, -ears of

    pratie at the ar in addition to his serie for the purposes

    of pension. (+) In the aternatie% pra-ed for a diretion to

    treat the appointees under 'rtie 17()(+) for the purposes

    of pension atparwith the appointees under 'rtie 17()(a).

    On 7.,5.,,% whie issuin" notie% this #ourt passed the

    foowin" order?3

    91. In this writ petition% the question whih arises foronsideration reates to pension whih is pa-a+e to a$ud"e who retires from this #ourt after hain" +eenappointed diret- from the ar. 0imiar question asoarises with re"ard to ar appointees to the !i"h #ourts.

    2. =2periene has shown that the ar appointeesespeia-% if the- are appointed at the a"e of 6, -ears anda+oe% "et esser pension than the 0erie $ud"eappointees. It is to +e seen that as far as the #onstitutionof India is onerned% it stipuates the manner ofappointment of the $ud"es and proides what ma- +etermed as the quaifiation required for their appointment.The #onstitution ontempates appointment to the !i"h#ourts from amon"st mem+ers of the ar as we as fromamon"st the judiia offiers. The #onstitution does notproide for an- speifi quota. Ti a few -ears a"o inpratie

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    9/19Page 9

    propose more 0erie $ud"es +ein" appointed if suita+emem+ers of the ar are not aaia+e. ut this annot +emore than 7,D in an- ase. It ma- here aso +e noted thatin the #hief $usties9 #onferene hed in 1555% it wasunanimous- resoed that the quota shoud norma- +e

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    10/19Page 10

    17 0## 75% a Gaw-ers9 'ssoiation fied a writ petition in the

    !i"h #ourt of Aehi pra-in" therein that the +enefit of 16

    -ears addition of serie +e "ien to the $ud"e% who is

    diret- appointed from the ar to the !i"her $udiia 0erie

    for the purposes of pension. The writ petition was aowed

    and Rue

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    11/19Page 11

    +enefit of 1, -ears addition to their serie for the purposes

    of pension is +ein" denied to the $ud"es of the !i"h ourt

    appointed from the ar% whih is ar+itrar- and ioatie of

    'rtie 17 of the #onstitution of India.

    15) The =2panation (aa) appended to 'rtie 1*() of the

    #onstitution of India enisa"es that% Bin omputin" the period

    durin" whih a person has +een an adoate of a !i"h #ourt%

    there sha +e inuded an- period durin" whih the person

    has hed judiia offie or the offie of a mem+er of a tri+una

    or an- post% under the Union or a 0tate% requirin" speia

    knowed"e of aw after he +eame an adoate.C The

    e2panation thus treats the e2periene of an 'doate at the

    ar and the period of judiia offie hed +- him at par.

    ,) The $ud"es% who are appointed under 'rtie 1*()(a)

    +ein" mem+ers of the $udiia 0erie% een if the- sere as a

    $ud"e of the !i"h #ourt for on- one or two -ears% "et fu

    pension +enefits +eause of the appia+iit- of Rue

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    12/19Page 12

    do not "et simiar +enefit of fu pension% whih is ar+itrar-

    and disriminator-.

    1) 0etion 17 of the !#$ 't and #ause of Part I of the

    4irst 0hedue whih "oerns the pension pa-a+e to $ud"es

    "ies rise to unequa onsequenes. The e2istin" sheme

    treats unequa- the equas% whih is ioatie of 'rties 17

    and 1 of the #onstitution of India.

    ) To remoe the a+oe disrimination% in the #hief

    $usties #onferene hed on 'pri 6 and

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    13/19Page 13

    0# 1 and All India )udges Asso$iation s. Union of

    India% 'IR 155 0# 75 wherein the requirement of

    independene of the judiiar- hae +een underined as aso

    two deisions ited a+oe i.e. Kuldip Singh %supra'andAll

    India Young a!"ers# Asso$iation %supra'.

    7) ;hen persons who oupied the #onstitutiona Offie of

    $ud"e% !i"h #ourt retire% there shoud not +e an-

    disrimination with re"ard to the fi2ation of their pension.

    Irrespetie of the soure from where the $ud"es are drawn%

    the- must +e paid the same pension just as the- hae +een

    paid same saaries and aowanes and perks as serin"

    $ud"es. On- pratiin" 'doates who hae attained

    eminene are inited to aept $ud"eship of the !i"h #ourt.

    eause of the status of the offie of !i"h #ourt $ud"e% the

    responsi+iities and duties attahed to the offie% hard- an-

    adoate of distintion deines the offer. Thou"h it ma- +e

    a "reat finania sarifie to a suessfu aw-er to aept

    $ud"eship% it is the desire to sere the soiet- and the hi"h

    presti"e attahed to the offie and the respet the offie

    ommands that prope a suessfu aw-er to aept

    13

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    14/19Page 14

    $ud"eship. The e2periene and knowed"e "ained +- a

    suessfu aw-er at the ar an neer +e onsidered to +e

    ess important from an- point of iew is3a3is the e2periene

    "ained +- a judiia offier. If the serie of a judiia offier

    is ounted for fi2ation of pension% there is no aid reason as

    to wh- the e2periene at ar annot +e treated as equiaent

    for the same purpose.

    6) The fi2ation of hi"her pension to the $ud"es drawn from

    the 0u+ordinate $udiiar- who hae sered for shorter period

    in ontradistintion to $ud"es drawn from the ar who hae

    sered for on"er period with ess pension is hi"h-

    disriminator- and +reah of 'rtie 17 of the #onstitution.

    The assifiation itsef is unreasona+e without an- e"a-

    aepta+e ne2us with the o+jet sou"ht to +e ahieed.

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    15/19Page 15

    the offie of $ud"eship. ;hen apa+e aw-ers do not show

    inination towards $ud"eship% the quait- of justie deines.

    *) In most of the 0tates% the $ud"eship of the !i"h #ourt is

    offered to adoates who are in the a"e "roup of 6,366

    -ears% sine pre3eminene at the ar is ahieed norma- at

    that a"e. 'fter remainin" at the top for a few -ears% a

    suessfu aw-er ma- show inination to aept $ud"eship%

    sine that is the umination of the desire and o+jetie of

    most of the aw-ers. ;hen persons hodin" onstitutiona

    offie retire from serie% makin" disrimination in the

    fi2ation of their pensions dependin" upon the soure from

    whih the- were appointed is in +reah of 'rties 17 and

    1

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    16/19Page 16

    #ourt $ud"es is har"ed on the #onsoidated 4und of India

    under 'rtie 11()(d)(iii) of the #onstitution.

    5) In the i"ht of what is disussed% we aept the

    petitioners9 aim and deare that for pensionar- +enefits%

    ten -ears9 pratie as an adoate +e added as a quaif-in"

    serie for $ud"es eeated from the ar. 4urther% in order to

    remoe ar+itrariness in the matter of pension of the $ud"es

    of the !i"h #ourts eeated from the ar% the reiefs% as

    mentioned a+oe are to +e rekoned from ,1.,7.,,7% the

    date on whih 0etion 1' was inserted +- the !i"h #ourt

    and 0upreme #ourt $ud"es (0aaries and #onditions of

    0erie) 'mendment 't% ,,6 (7< of ,,6). Requisite

    amendment +e arried out in the !i"h #ourt $ud"es Rues%

    156< with re"ard to post3retira +enefits as has +een done in

    reation to the retired $ud"es of the 0upreme #ourt in terms

    of amendment arried out +- Rue of the 0upreme #ourt

    $ud"es Rues% 1565.

    C&&7 A7 N*'.424!#424$ *- 2014(A%&'& *+, *- S.L.P. (C) N*'. $55!#$55$ *- 2010

    ,) Geae "ranted.

    16

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    17/19

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    18/19Page 18

    ) It is +rou"ht to our notie that in pursuane of the said

    Resoution% most of the 0tates in the ountr- hae e2tended

    arious post3retira +enefits to the retired #hief $usties and

    retired $ud"es of the respetie !i"h #ourts. - F.O.Es.Ho.

    @ dated 1

  • 8/12/2019 P Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors

    19/19

    that the 0tates who hae not so far framed suh sheme wi

    formuate the same% dependin" on the oa onditions% for

    the +enefit of the retired #hief $usties and retired $ud"es of

    the respetie !i"h #ourts as ear- as possi+e prefera+-

    within a period of si2 months from the date of reeipt of op-

    of this order.

    6) ' the ;rit Petitions and the appeas are disposed of on

    the a+oe terms. In iew of the disposa of the writ petitions%

    no orders are required in the interention appiation.

    .MM.MMMMMMMMMM#$I.(P. SATHASIVAM)

    MMMM.MMMMMMMMMM$.(RANJAN GOGOI)

    MMMM.MMMMMMMMMM$.(N.V. RAMANA)

    H=; A=G!I>E'R#! 1% ,17.

    19