Judges of all High Courts should be paid same salary, pension: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said all High Court judges are one homogenous class of office holders and thus must be paid same service benefits including pension, without any discrimination. (Justice Shailendra Singh and ors v Union of India and ors).A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra questioned how judges of different High Courts can be given different pensions."The High Courts are constitutional institutions. Their status as constitutional institutions is recognised by Article 216. Article 216 does not make any distinction between the source through which judges of the High Court are recruited. ... once appointed to the High Court, every Judge ranks at par. Once appointed, no distinction can be made between judges for the purpose of the payment of salary and for extending other service conditions both during and after they cease to be in service", the Court said..The Court was hearing a matter related to the pending release of provident fund dues of Patna High Court judges and pension-related issues faced by them.In September, the top court had directed the State of Bihar to release the pending salary of Patna High Court judge Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra who had not received his salary for ten months due to the absence of a General Provident Fund (GPF) account..The Court today said that any distinction in service benefits would undermine the principle of homogeneity among High Court judges."It is not within the contemplation of the Constitution that the payment of salaries and the extension of other benefits both during and after service should be left to the vagaries of determination by individual States and the schemes which are applicable to civil service officers discharging duties in each State. The payment of salaries and allowances to sitting judges is charged to the Consolidated Fund of every State in terms of Article 202(3)(d) ... pensionary payments are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India under Article 112(d)(3)", it added..Accordingly, the Court held the following:-The High Courts are constitutional institutions and upon appointment as judges of the High Court, all judges, irrespective of the source from which they are drawn, partake the character of holders of constitutional offices in equal measure; -Neither Article 221(1) of the Constitution which empowers Parliament to determine the salaries of the Judges of the High Court nor Article 221(2) which empowers Parliament to determine the allowances and rights in respect of 19 the leave of absence and pension permits discrimination between judges of the High Court based on the source from which they are drawn; -Article 217 of the Constitution specifies distinct sources of recruitment for judges of the High Court from the district judiciary or, as the case may be, the Bar. But once appointed to the High Court, all judges form one homogenous class of constitutional office holders; Judicial independence is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and there is an intrinsic relationship between financial independence of judges and judicial independence; -The significance of provisions pertaining to the guarantee of service conditions, while in service and post retiral benefits for judges is evidenced by the fact that the salaries and allowances of sitting judges and the pensions of retired judges are in the nature of a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the State and the Consolidated Fund of India respectively; -Any determination of the service benefits of sitting judges of the High Court and the retiral benefits which are payable to them including pension, must take place on the basis of the fundamental principle of non-discrimination between judges of the High Court who constitute one homogenous group; -and All judges of the High Court, irrespective of the source from which they are drawn, are entrusted with the same constitutional function of discharging duties of adjudication under the law. Once appointed as judges of the High Court, their birthmarks stand obliterated and any attempt to make a distinction between judges, either for the purpose of determining their conditions of service while in service or any form of retiral dues would be unconstitutional..Attorney General R Venkataramani appeared for the Union government. Senior Advocate K Parameshwar is the Amicus Curiae in the matter.Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for some of the judges..[Read judgment]