Resignation from Judiciary: Does It Affect Pension Rights?

Pension rights of judges who resign before completing their full tenure have been a subject of legal interpretation and debate. The recent Bombay High Court judgment in Pushpa w/o Virendra Ganediwala v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors. (2025) has provided clarity on this issue by addressing whether resignation from judicial office forfeits the right to pension.

This article examines the legal framework governing judicial pensions, the implications of resignation, and judicial precedents on the subject.

Legal Framework Governing Judicial Pensions

The pensionary benefits of High Court judges are governed by the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act specify the conditions under which a judge becomes eligible for pension. Key provisions include:

Section 14: A judge is entitled to pension upon “retirement” if they meet any of the following conditions:

• Completion of at least 12 years of service.
• Attainment of the age of 62 years.
• Retirement due to ill health.

Section 15: Judges who have held pensionable posts in government service prior to their judicial appointment have the option to elect a pension scheme under this provision.

Does Resignation Amount to Retirement?

One of the primary issues in judicial pension jurisprudence is whether “resignation” qualifies as “retirement” under the 1954 Act. While retirement is generally understood to be a voluntary separation after fulfilling service tenure requirements, resignation implies a voluntary decision to leave before the tenure is complete.

The term “retirement” is not defined under the Act, leading to interpretational challenges. However, judicial precedents have explored whether resignation can be considered a mode of retirement and whether pension rights survive a judge’s resignation.

Judicial Precedents on Pension Rights and Resignation

Several landmark judgments have examined the pension rights of judges who resigned before attaining the age of superannuation:

1. Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 369: This case emphasized that “retirement” is a broad term that includes voluntary cessation of service through resignation.
2. P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 1: The Supreme Court ruled that pensionary benefits are not a bounty but a right accrued through service. Any condition denying pension solely based on resignation would be arbitrary unless expressly provided by statute.
3. UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 412: This case ruled that where service rules explicitly provide for forfeiture of pension upon resignation, such a rule would be enforceable. However, it distinguished between general government servants and constitutional office holders like judges.
4. Justice (Retd.) Raj Rahul Garg v. Union of India, (2024 SCC OnLine SC 321): The Supreme Court held that discrimination between additional and permanent judges in pension matters is not permissible unless justified by statutory provisions.
5. Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande v. High Court of Judicature of Bombay, (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9686): The Bombay High Court recognized pension rights for a judge who had voluntarily demitted office as an additional judge before attaining superannuation.

Recent Judgment: Pushpa w/o Virendra Ganediwala v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors. (2025)

The Pushpa Ganediwala case has provided significant clarity on whether resignation precludes pension eligibility. The petitioner, a former judge of the Bombay High Court, had resigned after serving as an additional judge for nearly three years. Her pension claim was denied on the grounds that resignation amounts to forfeiture of pension benefits. However, the Bombay High Court held:

1. Retirement under the 1954 Act includes resignation: The Court relied on dictionary meanings and judicial precedents to establish that resignation is one of the modes of retirement.
2. Legislative intent does not exclude pension on resignation: If Parliament intended to exclude judges who resigned from pension benefits, it would have done so explicitly.
3. Precedent of other judges receiving a pension after resignation: The Court noted that five other judges who resigned had received pension, making the rejection of the petitioner’s claim arbitrary.
4. Direction to grant pension with interest: The Court directed that pensionary benefits be paid to the petitioner from the date of resignation, with 6% annual interest.

Analysis and Implications

The ruling has significant implications for judges who resign before completing their tenure:

1. Resignation does not forfeit pension rights: This establishes an important precedent that prevents arbitrary denial of pension to judges who resign before superannuation.
2. Equity in pension treatment: The judgment underscores that pension cannot be denied selectively when others in similar circumstances have been granted pension.
3. Legal clarity on ‘retirement’: By interpreting ‘retirement’ broadly, the ruling ensures that resignation does not automatically result in pension forfeiture.
4. Implications for judicial independence: By securing pension rights irrespective of resignation, the ruling may encourage judicial officers to act independently without fear of financial insecurity upon resignation.

Counterarguments and Challenges

Despite this ruling, some arguments persist against treating resignation as retirement for pension purposes:

• Legislative Silence: The 1954 Act does not explicitly state that resignation qualifies as retirement. Some argue that this omission suggests legislative intent to exclude pension upon resignation.
• Voluntary Exit v. Superannuation: Unlike superannuation, resignation is an act of voluntary separation, which might justify different treatment in pension rules.
• Precedents from Civil Service Law: In other government services, resignation typically results in forfeiture of past service benefits, which might influence interpretations in judicial service laws.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

The Pushpa Ganediwala judgment affirms that resignation does not automatically forfeit pension rights for judges. By interpreting “retirement” to include resignation, the Bombay High Court has set an important precedent ensuring financial security for judges who leave office voluntarily. This decision strengthens judicial independence and aligns with broader constitutional principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in pension entitlements.

Future legislative reforms could provide clearer statutory provisions to avoid litigation on similar issues. Until then, this ruling stands as a crucial affirmation of judicial pension rights in India.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams