In a landmark judgment that strengthens the constitutional ethos of equality and judicial independence, the Supreme Court of India has extended the principle of One Rank One Pension (OROP) to the higher judiciary. Delivered in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 4 of 2024 along with several connected matters, the Court’s decision resolves long-standing disparities in pension entitlements among retired High Court judges, particularly those who began their careers in the district judiciary or served as additional judges.
Title of the Case: In Re: Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 726
Judges: B.R. Gavai (CJI), Augustine George Masih (J) and K. Vinod Chandran (J)
Date of Judgment: 19th May 2025
Background of the Case
The issue originated from multiple writ petitions filed by retired judges or their family members. These petitions challenged the arbitrary denial of full pensionary benefits based on:
- Non-recognition of years served as District Judges.
- Denial due to minor breaks in service.
- Exclusion from pension for judges inducted after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme (NPS).
- Discrimination against Additional Judges in granting gratuity and family pension.
Recognising the constitutional and systemic importance of the matter, the Supreme Court initiated a suo motu writ petition to adjudicate all these issues comprehensively.
Issues Before the Court
The Court identified six core issues for determination:
- Non-grant of full pension to retired High Court judges who had also served extensively in the district judiciary.
- Denial of pension on grounds of “break-in-service”, especially for judges who retired before formal appointment to the High Court.
- Exclusion of judges entering service post-NPS from pension entitlements under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (HCJ Act).
- Refusal to grant full pension to Additional Judges of the High Court.
- Denial of family pension and gratuity to widows of Additional Judges.
- Non-payment of Provident Fund to judges due to NPS implementation.
These matters were consolidated under the Court’s inherent and original jurisdiction, affirming its commitment to upholding judicial dignity and equality.
Legal Framework
The judgment meticulously examined key provisions of:
- Article 221 of the Constitution of India
- High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954
- First Schedule – Part I and III of the HCJ Act
- Section 14A and Section 17A regarding pension, gratuity, and family pension
- Relevant judicial precedents, including P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India (2014), Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others, and Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India (2024)
These statutory and constitutional instruments affirm that judges should not face discrimination based on the route of their appointment (service or Bar) or administrative breaks in service.
The Court’s Analysis
1. Service in District Judiciary Must Count
The Court held that all judicial service—whether in district courts or High Courts—must be counted for pension. Citing M.L. Jain v. Union of India (1985, 1991), it reiterated that last drawn salary as a High Court judge must form the basis for pension calculations, regardless of previous roles.
This ruling benefits judges who served decades in the district judiciary before being elevated to the High Court and were otherwise drawing minimal pensions calculated on lower pay scales.
2. Break-in-Service Is Not Fatal
Responding to the Union’s argument that break-in-service (e.g., retirement as District Judge followed by High Court appointment months later) invalidates pension claims, the Court decisively rejected this contention. In Raj Rahul Garg (2024), the Court emphasised that technical breaks cannot defeat constitutional entitlements.
Judges facing such administrative discontinuities were still entitled to the pension scale of a High Court Judge.
3. NPS cannot Undermine Judicial Pension
One of the most consequential findings of the judgment is that NPS rules cannot override the HCJ Act. Judges appointed after NPS implementation in 2004 must still receive benefits under the HCJ Act if they retire as High Court judges.
In Justice Shailendra Singh v. Union of India (2024), the Court underscored the primacy of constitutional provisions over administrative schemes like NPS in matters of High Court judges’ pensions.
4. Additional Judges Are Entitled to Full Pension
The Court acknowledged the unfair exclusion of Additional Judges from pensionary benefits and held that status as an Additional Judge does not disqualify one from pension. This rectifies long-standing prejudice against such appointments.
Further, in Elavarasi Veeraraghavan v. Union of India, the Court ruled that widows of Additional Judges are entitled to both gratuity and family pension, even if the judge had not completed the qualifying period of 2.5 years. The dignity of judicial office, the Court said, transcends statutory rigidity.
5. Provident Fund and Gratuity Cannot Be Denied
Finally, the Court held that judges who served in the judiciary before appointment to the High Court—even under NPS—are entitled to General Provident Fund (GPF) benefits. It reiterated that judges are a homogenous constitutional class and their financial security is part of judicial independence.
Constitutional Values and Equality
A recurring theme in the Court’s reasoning is non-discrimination under Article 14. The Court affirmed that once a person assumes the constitutional office of a High Court Judge, “birthmarks” from previous service should disappear. Whether the judge rose through the Bar, civil service, or the judiciary, their pension must reflect the stature of the office, not the route taken.
The Court added that Article 221 guarantees fair pension rights, and its proviso prevents variation to a judge’s disadvantage. Therefore, allowing fragmented service or administrative breaks to reduce pension benefits violates this protection.
Implementation Directions
The Court directed:
- Recalculation and refixation of pension for all affected judges as per uniform standards.
- Payment of arrears to be made within three months.
- Necessary amendments to HCJ Rules, 1956, and related regulations to reflect this judgment.
- Uniform application of Rs. 13,50,000 (other judges) and Rs. 15,00,000 (Chief Justices) as annual pension ceilings, as specified in the HCJ Act.
Significance of the Verdict
This historic judgment achieves several crucial objectives:
- Remedies for systemic injustices against judges from the district judiciary.
- Ensures financial dignity for retired High Court judges and their families.
- Upholds constitutional morality by reinforcing Article 14 and Article 221.
- Brings clarity and uniformity in pension jurisprudence for the judiciary.
- Recognises judicial independence as requiring post-retirement dignity and security.
It reflects the judiciary’s introspective capacity to reform and the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensure that “equal constitutional office means equal constitutional entitlements.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 4 of 2024 marks a watershed moment in judicial service jurisprudence. By declaring that One Rank One Pension must apply to constitutional judges, it corrects structural inequalities and elevates the judiciary’s post-retirement welfare to the status it deserves.
In doing so, the Court reaffirms that equality, dignity, and independence are not just principles for others—it must start at home, with the judiciary itself.
