Holding

All High Court judges, regardless of whether they are appointed from the Bar or the District Judiciary, are entitled to subscribe to the General Provident Fund; the proviso to Section 20 does not create an exclusion, and any denial violates constitutional principles of equality and judicial independence.

Summary

Eight judges of the Patna High Court, appointed from the District Judiciary, were denied subscription to the General Provident Fund (GPF) on the ground that they had previously been covered by the New Pension Scheme. They filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking equal treatment. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 20 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and its proviso, barred such judges from joining the GPF, and whether judges drawn from the Bar and the District Judiciary form a homogeneous class for service conditions. Relying on Articles 14, 216, 217 and 221 of the Constitution and prior case law, the Court held that all High Court judges are constitutional office‑holders and must be treated alike; the proviso to Section 20 is merely explanatory and does not exclude district‑judiciary appointees. Consequently, the communication denying GPF subscription was quashed, GPF accounts were to be opened retrospectively, and NPS contributions were to be returned.

Issues considered

Whether High Court judges appointed from the District Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident Fund on the basis of prior service under the New Pension Scheme.
Whether all High Court judges, irrespective of source of recruitment, constitute a homogeneous class for determining service conditions and post‑retirement benefits.
Interpretation of the proviso to Section 20 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

Legislation cited

High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954s. 13A, s. 14, s. 14A, s. 15, s. 20

Headnote

Issue for Consideration (1) Whether Judges of the High Court appointed from the District Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident Fund (GPF) on the basis of their previous service under the New Pension Scheme (NPS); and (2) Whether High Court, irrespective of their source of recruitment, constitute a homogenous class for determining service conditions, including post-retirement benefits. Headnotes† High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s.20 – Constitution of India –

Subjects

High Court Judges’ SalariesGeneral Provident FundNon-discriminationJudicial IndependenceFinancial Independence of JudiciaryService ConditionsConstitutional LawArticle 14Article 216Article 217Article 221

Judgment

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1042 : 2024 INSC 862

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 2023
05 November 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
(1) Whether Judges of the High Court appointed from the District
Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident
Fund (GPF) on the basis of their previous service under the New
Pension Scheme (NPS); and
(2) Whether all Judges of the High Court, irrespective of their source
of recruitment, constitute a homogenous class for determining
service conditions, including post-retirement benefits.

Headnotes†
High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act,
1954 – s.20 – Constitution of India – Art.14, 216, 217, 221 –
Provident Fund Subscription by Judges of the High Court –
Non-discrimination based on source of recruitment – All
Judges of the High Court, whether drawn from the Bar or
District Judiciary, form a single homogenous class:
Held: Judges of the High Court are constitutional office holders,
and once appointed, no distinction can be made between Judges
based on their source of recruitment, whether from the Bar or the
District Judiciary in light of the sense of homogeneity envisaged
by Art.216 of the Constitution – Art.221(2) of the Constitution
guarantees uniformity in service conditions, and any discrimination
violates the principle of equality under Art.14 – The proviso to s.20
of the 1954 Act, which allows Judges to continue subscribing to
their previous provident fund, does not preclude District Judiciary
Judges from joining the General Provident Fund if no previous
fund subscription exists. [Paras 21, 22, 27, 34]

* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1043

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Doctrine/Principles – Financial independence of Judges –
Integral to judicial independence – No differentiation
permissible in service conditions based on source of
recruitment:
Held: Judicial independence is a part of the basic structure of
the Constitution, and financial independence, including equitable
service and retirement benefits, is essential to ensure judicial
independence – Once appointed to the High Court, Judges’
service conditions and post-retirement benefits must reflect the
constitutional principle of equality – Any attempt to distinguish
between Judges based on their source of recruitment undermines
the judiciary’s integrity – The 54th Amendment to the Constitution
also stipulated determination of salary and other connected
matters by Parliament in order to ensure national uniformity in
their conditions of service [Paras 22, 24, 23, 34(iv), (vi)]

Interpretation of Proviso to Section 20 – Judges with no prior
subscription to a provident fund under the NPS cannot be
denied the benefit of the General Provident Fund:
Held: The substantive part of Section 20 mandates that every
Judge of the High Court shall be entitled to subscribe to the
General Provident Fund – The proviso is merely explanatory,
allowing continuity for those already subscribing to a different
provident fund but does not exclude others from joining the GPF –
Judges from the District Judiciary who did not subscribe to a
provident fund under the NPS cannot be denied this benefit.
[Paras 29, 33, 35]

Case Law Cited
P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India [2014] 4 SCR 562 :
(2014) 12 SCC 1; Union of India v. Justice (Retd.) Raj Rahul
Garg 2024 INSC 219 : [2024] 3 SCR 848; All India Judges
Association v. Union of India 2024 INSC 26 : [2024] 1 SCR
327 – relied on.

List of Acts
High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
1044 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
High Court Judges’ Salaries; General Provident Fund; Non-
discrimination; Judicial Independence; Financial Independence
of Judiciary.

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of
2023
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2024 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1262
of 2021

Appearances for Parties
K. Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Advs.
Vikrant Singh Bais, Prem Prakash, Ms. Deepali Nanda, Advs. for
the Petitioners.
R. Venkatramani, AGI, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Vatsal Joshi, Akshit
Pradhan, Shlok Chandra, Raghav Sharma, Raman Yadav, Kartikay
Aggarwal, Chitvan Singhal, Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Abhishek
Kumar Pandey, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal
Sharma, Abhimanyu Jhamba, Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee,
Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Sudarshan Lamba, Shlok Cahndra, Ms. Sunita
Sharma, Anmol Chandan, Annirudh Sharma-(ii), Ishaan Sharma,
Sarthak Karol, Padmesh Mishra, Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita
Singh, Tushar Nair, Anirudh Anand, Punishk Handa, Advs. for the
Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

Background
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has
been invoked by eight judges of the High Court of Patna who are
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1045

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

aggrieved by a communication dated 13 December 2022 issued by
the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of
Justice of the Union Ministry of Law and Justice. The communication
has been issued to the Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the
Principal Accountant General (A&E) at Patna.
2. The petitioners were appointed as District Judges on 15 April 2010.
Seven petitioners in the first of the two petitions, were appointed
as Judges of the Patna High Court on 4 June 2022 while the sole
petitioner in the second petition was appointed as a Judge of that
High Court on 22 November 2023. On appointment as Judges of
the High Court, their salaries and conditions of service were to be
governed by the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of
Service) Act 1954.1
3. Chapter III of the Act governs salaries and pensions. Section 13A
envisages that the Chief Justice of a High Court would be paid a
salary of Rs 2,50,000 per mensem and that the salary of a Judge
of a High Court would be Rs.2,25,000 per mensem. Section 142
provides for the payment of pension in accordance with the scale and
provisions set out in Part I of the First Schedule. Section 15 makes
a special provision for the payment of pension for judges of the High
Court who have held any other pensionable post under the Union
or State in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of
the First Schedule. However, every such Judge may elect to receive
the pension payable either under Part I or Part III of the Schedule.
4. Section 20 governs the payment of Provident Fund and is in the
following terms:

1 Act of 1954
2 14. Pension payable to Judges.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Judge shall, on his
retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part I of the First Schedule:
Provided that no such pension shall be payable to a Judge unless—
(a) he has completed not less than twelve years of service for pension; or
(b) he has attained the age of sixty-two years; or
(c) his retirement is medically certified to be necessitated by ill-health:
Provided further that if a Judge at the time of his appointment is in receipt of a pension (other than a
disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service in the Union or a State, the pension
payable under this Act shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, that pension.
Explanation.—In this section “Judge” means a Judge who has not held any other pensionable post under
the Union or a State and includes a Judge who having held any other pensionable post under the Union
or a State has elected to receive the pension payable under Part I of the First Schedule.
1046 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“20. Provident Fund.—Every Judge shall be entitled to
subscribe to the General Provident Fund (Central Services):
Provided that a Judge who has held any other pensionable
civil post under the Union or a State shall continue
to subscribe to the Provident Fund to which he was
subscribing before his appointment as a Judge.”
5. After the petitioners were appointed as judges of the High Court,
no steps were taken by the authorities to open a General Provident
Fund account as a consequence of which, on their retirement, they
have not received any terminal benefit pertaining to the provident
fund. The scope of the controversy, in the present case, turns on
the interpretation of the provisions of Section 20.

Submissions
6. Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, has broadly addressed the Court
on three propositions:
(i) The provisions of the Constitution and of the statute governing
the conditions of service of sitting and former judges must
be construed from the perspective of providing financial
independence both at the institutional and individual level;
(ii) There must be uniformity of the service conditions of High
Court judges both during service and after retirement and the
intent underlying Article 221 would be defeated by making a
distinction between the conditions of service available to judges
(and former judges) of the High Court based on their source
of recruitment; and
(iii) All judges of the High Court constitute one single class as
defined in Article 216 and Article 221, irrespective of the source
of appointment and in consequence, the principle of non-
discrimination in regard to the conditions of service must apply.
7. Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, senior counsel, who has appeared in a companion
matter, has also addressed the Court in the present batch of cases
urging that :
(i) The provisions of the Constitution do not contemplate two
classes of judges;
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1047

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

(ii) As holders of constitutional offices within constitutional
institutions, there is only one class of High Court judges
irrespective of whether they have been drawn from the Bar or
the District Judiciary;
(iii) The requirement of financial independence which is the
fundamental constitutional postulate underlying the provisions
of Article 202(3)(d), Article 112(3)(d)(iii) and Articles 216, 217
and 221, applies in equal measure both to service and Bar
judges appointed to the High Court;
(iv) The law under Article 221(1) must of necessity be uniform
for all judges of the High Court and no sub-classification is
permissible; and
(v) The domain of the law which is contemplated in Article
221 is for the determination of the quantum of salaries and
there cannot be any bifurcation between the entitlements
of judges of the High Court drawn from the district judiciary
and the Bar.
8. Mr R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, on the other hand,
has placed reliance on the proviso to Section 20 of the Act of 1954
and urged that the true intendment of the proviso is that a Judge
who has held a pensionable civil post under the State (in this case,
the district judiciary) will continue to subscribe to the provident fund
to which he was subscribing before his appointment as a Judge of
the High Court. It has been urged that with the implementation of the
National Pension Scheme with effect from 1 April 2024, all district
judges appointed after that date came to be governed by the New
Pension Scheme with the consequence that any subscription to the
provident fund must be in a manner consistent with the new scheme.
Hence, it has been urged by the Attorney General that a member of
the district judiciary who is appointed as a Judge of the High Court,
they would not be entitled to the benefit of the General Provident Fund
which is otherwise applicable to Judges of the High Court. Finally,
it has been urged that in any event, there is no justification for the
petitioners to seek a transfer of the amounts of the New Pension
Scheme Contribution as district judges to the General Provident
Fund accounts, if they may be directed to be opened by this Court.
1048 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Analysis
9. Article 216 of the Constitution provides that every High Court shall
consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President
may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint.3 Article 217(2)
provides for the sources of recruitment of judges of the High Court
from the Bar or, as the case may be judicial service and specifies
the qualifications for appointment from the two sources.4
10. Article 221, in its present form, is in the following terms:
“221. Salaries etc. of Judges—(1) There shall be paid
to the Judges of each High Court such salaries as may
be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision
in that behalf is so made, such salaries as are specified
in the Second Schedule.

3 216. Constitution of High Courts.—Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other
Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint.
4 217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.—(1) Every Judge of a High
Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal 222[on the recommendation
of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in Article 124-A], and 223[shall hold office,
in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in Article 224, and in any other case, until he
attains the age of sixty-two years:
Provided that—
(a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;
(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in clause (4) of
Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court;
(c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the
Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory
of India.
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of
India and—
(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or
(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in
succession;
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause—
(a) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there
shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an
advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or
a State, requiring special knowledge of law;
in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be
included any period during which the person has held judicial office or the office of a member of a
tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law] after he became
an advocate;
(b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India or
been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period before the commencement of
this Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area which was comprised before the
fifteenth day of August, 1947, within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been
an advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be.
(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court, the question shall be decided by the
President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the President shall be final.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1049

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and
to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension
as may from time to time be determined by or under law
made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such
allowances and rights as are specified in the Second
Schedule:
Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his
rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be
varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.”
11. Clause (1) of Article 221 was substituted by the Constitution (54th
Amendment) Act 1986. Prior to its substitution, Clause (1) stipulated
that there shall be paid to the judges of each High Court, such salaries
as are specified in the Second Schedule. By the substitution of
Clause (1), the salaries which are payable to Judges of the High Court
are determined by Parliament by law and until such determination is
made, were to be governed by the salaries specified in the Second
Schedule. Clause (2) of Article 221 provides that every Judge shall
be entitled to allowances and to such rights in respect of leave
of absence and pension, as may be determined by law made by
Parliament from time to time. The proviso to Clause (2), however,
contains a guarantee that neither the allowances nor the rights of
a Judge in respect of leave of absence or pension would be varied
to their disadvantage after their appointment.
12. Article 202(3) provides for expenditures which should be charged on
the Consolidated Fund of each State. Sub-clause (d) stipulates that
expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of Judges of
a High Court would fall in that category.5 However, Article 112(3)(d)
(iii) stipulates that the pensions payable to or in respect of Judges
of any High Court which exercises jurisdiction in relation to any area
included, inter alia, in the territory of India would be charged to the
Consolidated Fund of India.6

5 202 Annual financial statement
(3) The following expenditure shall be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of each State—
…
(d) expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of Judges of any High Court
6 112 Annual financial statement
(3) The following expenditure shall be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India—
…
(d)(i) the salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of the Supreme Court,
1050 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

13. The constitutional scheme for High Court Judges is unique in that the
salaries and allowances payable to Judges of the High Court which
are determined by a law enacted by Parliament are charged to the
Consolidated Fund of each State under Article 202(3)(d). However,
the pensionary payments payable to the Judges of the High Court in
pursuance of a law enacted by Parliament under Article 221(2) are
charged to the Consolidated Fund of India by virtue of Article 112(d)
(3). Elaborate provisions have thus been made by the Constitution
to secure the independence of the Indian Judiciary by providing
Judges a measure of financial independence both during their term
of office and after retirement.
14. At this stage, it would be material to note that Section 221 of the
Government of India Act 1935 contained the following provisions in
regard to the payment of salaries and allowances for Judges of the
High Court :
“221. The judges of the several High Courts shall of
be entitled to such salaries and allowances, including
allowances for expenses in respect of equipment and
travelling upon appointment, and to such rights in respect
of leave and pensions, as may from time to time be fixed
by His Majesty in Council:
Provided that neither the salary of a judge, nor his rights
in respect of leave of absence or pension, shall be varied
to his disadvantage after his appointment.”
15. The draft framed by the Constitutional Adviser, Sir B N Rau, contained
a stipulation in draft Article 165 by virtue of which the salaries and
allowances of Judges of the High Courts and matters pertaining to
leave and pension would be determined by or under an Act of the
provincial legislature. Article 165 was in the following terms :
“165. The judges of the several High Courts shall be
entitled to such salaries and allowances, including
allowances for expenses in respect of equipment and

(ii) the pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of the Federal Court,
(iii) the pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of any High Court which exercises jurisdiction in
relation to any area included in the territory of India or which at any time before the commencement of
this Constitution exercised jurisdiction in relation to any area included in a Governor’s Province of the
Dominion of India
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1051

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

travelling upon appointment, and to such rights in respect
of leave and pension, as may be from time to time be
determined by or under Act of the Provincial Legislature,
and until they are so determine, shall be entitled to such
salaries, allowances, and rights in respect of leave and
pension as are specified in the Second Schedule to this
Constitution :
Provided that neither the salary of a judge, nor his rights
in respect of leave of absence or pension, shall be varied
to his disadvantage after his appointment.”
16. In the draft Constitution, draft Article 197 also contemplated that the
salaries and allowances and matters of leave and pension would be
governed by a law enacted by the Legislature of the State.7
17. During the course of the deliberations in the Drafting Committee, the
words “the legislature of the State in which the Court has its principal
seat” were substituted by “Parliament”. As a consequence of this, the
Constitution did not leave it to the wisdom of the legislature of each
State to determine the salaries and allowances payable to judges
of the High Court or for that matter, issues pertaining to their rights
in respect of leave of absence and pension.
18. The constitutional history is of significance because it indicates the
careful manner in which provisions pertaining to salaries, allowances
and pensions of the Judges of the High Courts were drafted so as
to preserve the independence of the judiciary. It is in this backdrop
that it becomes necessary to consider the position of a Judge of
the district judiciary who is subsequently appointed as a Judge of
the High Court.
19. This Court has, on several occasions underlined the importance
of financial independence, and financial dignity for serving and

7 The judges of each High Court shall be entitled to such salaries and allowances, and to such rights in
respect of leave and pensions, as may from time to time be fixed by or under law made by the Legislature
of the State in which the Court has its principal seat, and until they are so fixed, shall be entitled to such
salaries, allowances and rights in respect of leave of absence or pension as are specified in the Second
Schedule:
Provided that the salary of the Chief Justice of a High Court shall not be less than four thousand rupees
per month and the salary of any other judge of a High Court shall not be less than three thousand and
five hundred rupees per month:
Provided further that neither the salary of a judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension
shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.
1052 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

retired judges of the district judiciary. In the decision of this Court
in All India Judges Association Vs Union of India,8 the nature of
the inter-relationship between judicial independence and financial
independence has been reiterated in the following terms:
“13. Judicial service is an integral and significant
component of the functions of the State and contributes
to the constitutional obligation to sustain the rule of law.
Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics and in terms
of the responsibilities which are cast upon the officers of
the District Judiciary to render objective dispensation of
justice to citizens. The State is duty bound to ensure that
the conditions of service, both during the tenure of office
and after retirement, are commensurate with the need to
maintain dignified working conditions for serving judicial
officers and in the post-retirement emoluments made
available to former members of the judicial service. Members
of the district judiciary are the first point of engagement
for citizens who are confronted with the need for dispute
resolution. The conditions in which judicial officers across
the country are required to work are arduous. The work
of a judicial officer is not confined merely to the working
hours rendered in the course of judicial duties in the court.
Every judicial officer is required to work both before and
after the court working hours. The judicial work of each
day requires preparation before cases are called out. A
judicial officer continues to work on cases which may
have been dealt with in court, in terms of preparing the
judgment and attending to other administrative aspects
of the judicial record. That apart, members of the district
judiciary have wide ranging administrative functions which
take place beyond working hours, especially on week-ends
including the discharge of numerous duties in relation to
prison establishments, juvenile justice institutions, legal
service camps and in general, work associated with the
Legal Services Act 1987.

8 2024 INSC 26 : [2024] 1 SCR 327
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1053

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

14. The work of a Judge cannot be assessed solely in
terms of their duties during court working hours. The
State is under an affirmative obligation to ensure dignified
conditions of work for its judicial officers and it cannot
raise the defense of an increase in financial burden or
expenditure. Judicial officers spend the largest part of
their working life in service of the institution. The nature
of the office often renders the incumbent incapacitated in
availing of opportunities for legal work which may otherwise
be available to a member of the Bar. That furnishes an
additional reason why post-retirement, it is necessary for
the State to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in
conditions of human dignity. It needs to be emphasized
that providing for judges, both during their tenure and
upon retirement, is correlated with the independence
of the judiciary. Judicial independence, which is
necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of
common citizens in the rule of law, can be ensured and
enhanced only so long as judges are able to lead their
life with a sense of financial dignity. The conditions of
service while a judge is in service must ensure a dignified
existence. The post-retirement conditions of service
have a crucial bearing on the dignity and independence
of the office of a judge and how it is perceived by the
society. If the service of the judiciary is to be a viable
career option so as to attract talent, conditions of
service, both for working and retired officers, must
offer security and dignity.”
(emphasis supplied)

20. Members of the Bar who are appointed to the High Court are entitled
to subscribe to the General Provident Fund in terms of Section 20 of
the Act of 1954. The issue is whether such a benefit can be denied to
a Judge of the High Court who was a member of the district judiciary
prior to their appointment as a Judge of the High Court.
21. 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
1054 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

judges of the High Court are recruited. It stipulates that a High
Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the
President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint. In
other words, 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.
22. Article 217, which provides for the appointment and conditions of
service of a Judge of the High Court specifies the sources from which
the judges are drawn, namely, the district judiciary, and the Bar.
The source from which the judges of the High Court are appointed,
however, has no bearing on the position that once appointed to
the High Court, all judges constitute a homogenous class without
distinction. Making a distinction between judges of the High Court
based on whether they were drawn from the Bar or, as the case
may be, the district judiciary and to place judges drawn from either
of the sources at a relative disadvantage would fundamentally
militate against the sense of homogeneity which is envisaged by
the constitutional provisions, particularly, Article 216.
23. Apart from the principle underlying the creation of a homogenous
class of judges appointed to the High Courts, the Constitution has
made specific provisions which guarantee financial independence of
judges. Financial independence for judges is a necessary ingredient
of maintaining judicial independence. The Constitution made a
departure from the provisions of the Government of India Act 1935
under which the salaries and allowances as well as pension payable
to judges of the High Court were to be determined by an Act of the
provincial legislature.
24. Though, initially, a similar provision was contained in the draft
articles of the Constitution, a conscious departure was made in
the Constitution as it was framed. Before the 54th Amendment, the
Constitution provided that the salaries of judges would be such as
are specified in the Second Schedule. After the said Constitutional
amendment which was brought into force on 1 April 1986, the salaries
of judges of the High Court are determined by Parliament by law.
Likewise, matters pertaining to allowances, leave of absence and
pension are governed by Parliamentary enactments. The object of
providing for a Parliamentary determination of service conditions,
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1055

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

in particular, the salary, allowances and pension was to bring about
national uniformity in the conditions of service both of sitting and
former judges of High Courts.
25. Clearly, therefore, 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). The importance which was attached to the payment of pension
is clear from the fact that pensionary payments are charged on the
Consolidated Fund of India under Article 112(d)(3).
26. These provisions of the Constitution have been curated with care,
based on the overarching need to preserve judicial independence.
27. The principle of non-discrimination which animates Article 14 of the
Constitution applies a fortiori to the manner in which sitting and former
judges of the High Court are to be treated, irrespective of the source
from which they are drawn. This principle of non-discrimination was
underscored in the decision of this Court in P Ramakrishnam Raju
Vs Union of India,9 where the Court held :
“19. When persons who occupied the constitutional office
of Judge, High Court retire, there should not be any
discrimination with regard to the fixation of their pension.
Irrespective of the source from where the Judges are
drawn, they must be paid the same pension just as they
have been paid same salaries and allowances and perks
as serving Judges….
20. The fixation of higher pension to the Judges drawn from
the subordinate judiciary who have served for shorter period
in contradistinction to Judges drawn from the Bar who
have served for longer period with less pension is highly
discriminatory and breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The classification itself is unreasonable without any legally
acceptable nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

9 [2014] 4 SCR 562 : (2014) 12 SCC 1
1056 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

22. In most of the States, the Judgeship of the High
Court is offered to advocates who are in the age group of
50-55 years, since pre-eminence at the Bar is achieved
normally at that age. After remaining at the top for a few
years, a successful lawyer may show inclination to accept
Judgeship, since that is the culmination of the desire
and objective of most of the lawyers. When persons
holding constitutional office retire from service, making a
discrimination in the fixation of their pensions depending
upon the source from which they were appointed is
in breach of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
One rank one pension must be the norm in respect of a
constitutional office.”
28. This was reiterated recently in a decision of this Court in Union of
India Vs Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg,10 where the Court held:
“30. Acceptance of the submission of the Union of India
would discriminate against Judges of the High Court based
on the source from which they are drawn. A member of
the Bar is entitled to the addition of ten years of service
by virtue of the provisions of Section 14A. On the addition
of the years of service, their pensionary benefits would
be computed on the basis of the last drawn salary as a
Judge of the High Court. However, if the argument of the
Union of India is accepted, the pension of a Judge who
was a former District Judge would be computed on the
basis of their salary as a District Judge. A similar principle,
as applicable to Judges appointed from the Bar, must be
applied for computing the pension of a member of the
district judiciary who is appointed to the High Court. Any
other interpretation would result in a plain discrimination
between the Judges of the High Court based on the source
from which they have been drawn. Such an interpretation
would do disservice to the importance of the district
judiciary in contributing to the judiciary of the nation,
and would be contrary to the overall scheme and

10 2024 INSC 219 : [2024] 3 SCR 848
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1057

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

intendment of Chapter III of the statute. It would go
against the anti-discriminatory principles stipulated
by this Court in so far as Judges drawn from various
sources are concerned.”
emphasis supplied

29. This leaves the Court with the task of interpreting the provisions
of Section 20 of the Act of 1954. The substantive part of Section
20 stipulates that every Judge shall be entitled to subscribe to the
General Provident Fund (Services). The expression ‘every’ coupled
with the expression ‘shall’ underlines the mandatory character of the
provision which does not brook any exception. However, what the
proviso does is to deal with the case of a Judge who has held any
other pensionable civil post under the State or Union. In terms of the
proviso, such a Judge shall continue to subscribe to the provident
fund to which the Judge was subscribing before appointment as
a Judge. Properly construed, the proviso was not intended to be
restrictive in nature. Provisos can either be treated as exceptions or
in the nature of an explanation to the main provision. The proviso,
in the present case, is more in the nature of an explanation so as to
allow a Judge who holds a pensionable post under the Union or a
State and who is subscribing to provident fund to continue to do so
even after appointment as a Judge of the High Court so as to ensure
that the benefits which have already accrued would not be disrupted.
30. The Attorney General placed reliance on the proviso to contend that
Judges of the district judiciary who are appointed after 1 April 2004,
are governed by the New Pension Scheme.
31. At this stage, it would be necessary to clarify that in the course of
these proceedings, we are not adjudicating on any issue pertaining
to the applicability or the validity of the New Pension Scheme
since that issue is pending before this Court in independent
proceedings.
32. The simple issue before this Court is whether a member of the
district judiciary, upon appointment as a Judge of the High Court,
would be entitled to the benefit of the General Provident Fund which
is available to all High Court judges under Section 20.
1058 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

33. Unlike the payment of pensions where, as already noticed, there are
different provisions in Sections 14 and 15 of Chapter III of the Act of
1954, there is only one specific provision in regard to the payment
of provident fund which is contained in Section 20. The proviso to
Section 20 would have to be strictly construed and so construed, it
would have no application to the facts of the present situation. It is
not in dispute that members of the district judiciary appointed after
1 April 2004 did not subscribe to any provident fund, in which event
there was no question of applying the proviso to deprive them of
the benefit of the General Provident Fund which is available under
the substantive part of Section 20.

Conclusion
34. For the above reasons, we hold that:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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 the leave of
absence and pension permits discrimination between judges of
the High Court based on the source from which they are drawn;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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;
(v) 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;
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1059

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

(vi) 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
(vii) 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.
35. The communication which was addressed by the Under Secretary
to the Government of India in the Department of Law and Justice
purportedly stated that as judges appointed by direct recruitment
to the State Judicial Service after the adoption of the New Pension
Scheme by the State Governments and subsequently appointed
as High Court Judges are covered by the Contributory Provident
Scheme of the State Government, they would not be eligible to
subscribe to the General Provident Fund. The letter is not only
based on a mis-appreciation of the statutory scheme underlying
Section 20 of the Act of 1954 but is fundamentally at odds with the
constitutional status of judges of the High Court as a homogenous
class.
36. The letter dated 30 December 2022 shall accordingly stand quashed
and set aside. In consequence, we allow the petitions by directing
that a General Provident Fund account shall be opened with
effect from the date of appointment of every one of the petitioners
into which contributions shall be credited at par with all other
judges of the High Court irrespective of the source from which they
were drawn.
37. The amounts which are lying to the credit of the petitioners in the
New Pension Scheme shall be returned to them within a period of
four weeks from the date of this judgment.
38. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
1060 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Order

Writ Petition (Civil) No 1262 of 2021
1. The petitioner practiced as an advocate for about fourteen years
and eight months before joining the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial
Service as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on 8 September
1977. He was elevated as a permanent Judge of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad on 22 March 1996, after serving the district
judiciary for eighteen years and six months. He attained the age of
superannuation on 26 August 2002 after serving for six years, five
months and six days as a Judge of the High Court.
2. A Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued by the Office of the
Accountant General (A&E)-II U.P., Allahabad, by which his pensionary
payments were computed.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pensionary payment has
been computed at a rate lower than those Judges who were elevated
to the High Court from the Bar.
4. The PPO dated 13 July 2018 contains the following tabulation.
5. Revised Pension with effect from 01-01-2016 : Pay Fixation/2.57 factor
(Whichever is beneficial)
(a) Basic Pension Rs.107735/-
(b) Commuted Pension Rs.6224/-
(c) Reduced Pension (a-b) Rs.101511/-
(d) Family Pension (Enhanced Rate) N.A.
(e) Family Pension (Normal Rate) Rs.67500/-
(f) Additional Pension As applicable from time to time
6. Disbursing Bank
(a) Name of the Bank UNION BANK OF INDIA
(b) Paying Branch (BSR Code) UBIN 059856 BSR - 0290985
(c) Account No. 398502010101352
(d) Address Noida Main Branch Sector 29 B.P. Noida

5. Section 15 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of
Service) Act 19541 contains a special provision for the grant of

1 Act No 28 of 1954
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1061

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

pension to Judges who are members of service. Section 15(1) is in
the following terms:
“15. Special provision for pension in respect of Judges
who are members of service.—(1) Every Judge—

* * * *
(b) who has held any other pensionable post under the
Union or a State, shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension
in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of
the First Schedule:
Provided that every such Judge shall elect to receive the
pension payable to him either under Part I of the First
Schedule or, Part III of the First Schedule, and the pension
payable to him shall be calculated accordingly.”
6. The petitioner elected for pensionary payments under Part III of the
First Schedule, which is set out below:
“1. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who has
held any pensionable post under the Union or a State
(but is not a member of the Indian Civil Service) and who
has not elected to receive the pension payable under Part I.
2. The pension payable to such a Judge shall be—
(a) the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary
rules of his service if he had not been appointed a Judge,
his service as a Judge being treated as service therein for
the purpose of calculating that pension; and
(b) a special additional pension of [Rs. 45,016] per annum
in respect of each completed year of service for pension:
Provided that the pension under clause (a) and the
additional pension under (b) together shall in no case exceed
[Rs. 15,00,000] per annum in the case of a Chief Justice and
[Rs. 13,50,000] per annum in the case of any other Judge.”
7. In terms of clause (2) of Part III, the petitioner has to be paid (a) the
pension to which he would be entitled under the Rules of service
if he were not appointed as a Judge of the High Court; and (b) a
special additional pension of Rs 45,016 per annum in respect of
each completed year of service for pension.
1062 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

8. Section 14A of Act 28 of 1954 provides for the addition of a period
of ten years with effect from 1 April 2004 for the purpose of pension
to the service of a Judge who is appointed as a Judge of the High
Court under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution. Article 217(2)
provides for the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of the
High Court.2 Clause (a) provides for the appointment of a person
who has held judicial office for a period of at least ten years, while
clause (b) provides for an Advocate who has been an Advocate of a
High Court for at least ten years. Section 14A provides for an addition
of a period of ten years for the purpose of pension to persons who
fall under Article 217(2)(b).
9. The issue is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to the
addition of a similar benefit. In this context, it would be necessary
to refer to the judgment of this Court in Union of India vs Justice
(Retd) Raj Rahul Garg,3 wherein it was held thus:
““30. Acceptance of the submission of the Union of India
would discriminate against Judges of the High Court based
on the source from which they are drawn. A member of
the Bar is entitled to the addition of ten years of service
by virtue of the provisions of Section 14A. On the addition
of the years of service, their pensionary benefits would
be computed on the basis of the last drawn salary as a
Judge of the High Court. However, if the argument of
the Union of India is accepted, the pension of a Judge
who was a former District Judge would be computed on
the basis of their salary as a District Judge. A similar
principle, as applicable to Judges appointed from the
Bar, must be applied for computing the pension of a
member of the district judiciary who is appointed to the
High Court. Any other interpretation would result in a
plain discrimination between the Judges of the High
Court based on the source from which they have been

2 217 Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of
India and—
(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or
(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in
succession
3 2024 INSC 2009 : [2024] 3 SCR 848
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1063

Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

drawn. Such an interpretation would do disservice to
the importance of the district judiciary in contributing
to the judiciary of the nation, and would be contrary
to the overall scheme and intendment of Chapter III of
the statute. It would go against the anti-discriminatory
principles stipulated by this Court in so far as Judges
drawn from various sources are concerned.”
(emphasis supplied)

10. The petitioner qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High
Court since he had held judicial office for at least ten years within
the meaning of Article 217(2)(a). However, the petitioner was also
a member of the Bar for over fourteen years and eight months prior
to his appointment as a Judge of the High Court.
11. In this backdrop, we are of the view that it would be appropriate,
particularly having regard to the law which has been enunciated in
the above decision, to direct that the pensionary payments due to the
petitioner be recomputed after giving him the benefit of an addition
of ten years of service. However, it is clarified that the maximum
basic pension which is payable to a Judge of the High Court of
Rs 13,50,000 per annum shall continue to apply to the petitioner. The
petitioner retired from service on 26 August 2002. The difference in
pensionary payments payable to the petitioner shall be computed
with effect from the date of his retirement within a period of three
months and the arrears that are due and payable in terms of the
present order shall be paid over by 31 March 2025.
12. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Petitions allowed. Communication quashed.
Authorities directed to open GPF accounts for
petitioners with retrospective effect and return
NPS contributions within four weeks.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)