Justice Pushpa Ganediwala who voluntarily retired moves Bombay High Court against denial of pension

Former judge of Bombay High Court Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala, who authored the infamous skin-to-skin judgment in January 2021 acquitting accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCOS Act) and subsequently took voluntary retirement from service, has filed a petition before the High Court claiming that she has not been receiving pension after her retirement. .She has approached the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court seeking directions to the judicial authorities to extend pensionary benefits to her as applicable to high court judges.The former judge-turned-lawyer claimed that after her resignation as an additional judge of the High Court in February 2022, she had applied to the High Court officials informing them that she was not receiving any pensionary benefits. The registrar of the High Court then informed her that she was not eligible or entitled to pension as a High Court judge or other applicable benefits..Ganediwala has challenged this communication in High Court through a writ petition filed through advocate Akshay Naik on July 19. The plea is yet to come up for hearing..Justice Ganediwala started her judicial career in 2007 when she was appointed District Judge. She was appointed additional judge of Bombay High Court on February 8, 2019 for a period of two years.On January 12, 2021, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended that she be made a permanent judge of the High Court.However, this was withdrawn by the Collegium after certain contentious judgments authored by the judge came to light.The former judge had handed down three acquittals under the POCSO Act in three separate cases, all within a week. In a judgment delivered on January 14, 2021, she had reversed a conviction order after noting that there was nothing supporting the prosecution's case for rape (Jageshwar Wasudeo Kawle v. State of Maharashtra).On January 15, 2021 she held that the act of holding hands of a minor or the zip of the pants of the accused being open at the relevant time, does not amount to sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act (Libnus v. State of Maharashtra).A third judgment was delivered on January 19 in which she ruled that the act of pressing the breast of a 12-year-old child without removing her top will not fall within the definition of ‘sexual assault’ under Section 7 of POCSO (Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra).This third ruling which came to be known as skin-to-skin judgment had caused an uproar, with the Supreme Court eventually overturning the same.These rulings prompted the Collegium to recall its recommendation by which it had agreed to make Justice Ganediwala a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court.The Union Ministry of Law and Justice on February 21, 2021, accepted the Supreme Court Collegium's revised decision to not make her a permanent judge and extended her tenure as an additional judge by one more year. A year later, on February 10, 2022, she tendered her resignation since she was neither recommended for a permanent judgeship by the Collegium nor was her tenure as additional judge extended..Ganediwala in her plea argued that she is entitled to a pension irrespective of whether she superannuated or took voluntary retirement from the judicial office. She claimed to have worked as an additional judge of the High Court for close to 3 years but had worked as a district judge for over 11 years and 3 months. Ganediwala applied for a pension with the High Court administration. The then Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, however, gave his opinion that since Ganediwala had not retired as a High Court judge, she would not be entitled to a pension of the same rank..The High Court through its registrar general, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice and the State Law and Judiciary department have been arraigned as respondents.