Supreme Court of India

KULDIP SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2002 INSC 239
Decided: 29 April 2002
Disposal: Directions issued
Bench: B N KIRPALARIJIT PASAYATH K SEMA

Summary

Former judge Kuldip Singh filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the lower pension granted to judges appointed directly from the Bar, contending that the Constitution provides no quota for such appointments and that pension benefits should be uniform with those appointed from the judicial services. The petition raised the legal question of whether the decisions of the Chief Justices' and Chief Ministers' conferences, which set informal appointment ratios (66% Bar, 33% service), can justify differential pension treatment. The Court examined the historical practice of appointments and the resolutions of the 1993 and 1999 conferences, noting that these are policy decisions, not statutory mandates. No substantive ruling on the pension issue was made; the Court adjourned the matter for further orders after the summer vacation. Consequently, the petition remains pending.

Issues considered

Whether a judge appointed directly from the Bar is entitled to the same pension as a judge appointed from the judicial services.
Whether the Constitution or any statutory provision mandates a differential pension based on the source of appointment.
Whether the quota resolutions of the Chief Justices' and Chief Ministers' conferences affect pension rights of Bar-appointed judges.

Subjects

pensionjudgesappointment from BarHigh CourtSupreme CourtArticle 32constitutional lawjudicial servicequota

Judgment

)-
\

A KULDIP SINGH
~
v.
UNION OF INDIA

APRIL 29, 2002

B [B.N. KIRPAL, ARIJIT PASA YAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]

Pension-Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts-Appointment
h...
directly from the Bar-Pension-Held, before 4. 12. 1993 by way of practice
66-213% of vacancies of High Court Judges filled amongst members of Bar
c and 33-'13% from Judicial Services-In Chief Justices and Chief Ministers
Conference of 4. 12.1993 it was decided that number ofvaca_ncies to be filled
up from Judicial Officers "might go upto 409/-This cannot mean that number
of Judges from services have to be 409/-ln the Chief Justices' Conference
held in 1999 it was unanimously resolved that the quota should normally be
D 66-213% and 33- 113% anq it is on this basis the Government should determine
the likely number of Bar Judges and then consider whether the High Court
Judges who are appointed from amongst the members of the Bar should not
be given the same weightage as is now sought to be given to the members of
>-
the Bar who are appointed to Supreme Court as far as pension is concerned
..
E CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. (C) No. 410
of 2001.

(Under Article 32 of Constitution of India)

F.S. Nariman, P.H. Parekh, Rohit Mammen Alex, Subhash C. Sharma
F and Sameer Parekh for Petitioner.
~
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General for India, Dhruv Mehta, Manish
Singhvi and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered
G
In this writ petition, the question which arises for consideration relates
to pension which is payable to a Judge who retires from this Court after
having been appointed directly from the Bar. Similar question also arises
with regard to Bar appointees to the High Courts. ~.,

H
620
KULDIP SINGH v. U.0.1. 621

Experience has shown that the Bar appointees especially, if they are A
appointed at the age of 50 years and above get lesser pension than the Service
Judge appointees. It is to be seen that as far as the Constitution of India is
concerned, it stipulates the manner of appointment of the Judges and provides
what may be termed as the qualification required for their appointment. The
Constitution contemplates appointment to the High Courts from amongst B
members of the Bar as well as from amongst the Judicial Officers. The
Constitution does not provide for any specific quota. Till a few years ago in
practice 66-213% of vacancies were filled from amongst members of the Bar
and 33-1-113% from the Judicial Services. It is only in the Conference of 4th
December, 1993, of the Chief Ministers and the Chief Justices that it was
decided that the number of vacancies from amongst the judicial Officers C
"might go up to 40%." The decision of 4th December, 1993, cannot mean
that the number of Judges from the Services have to be 40%. The normal
practice which has been followed was 213rd and I/3rd from amongst members
of the Bar and Judicial Services respectively and it is only on a rare occasion
that the Chief Justice of a High Court can propose more service Judges being
appointed if suitable members of the Bar are not available. But this cannot D
be more than 40% in any case. It may here also be noted that in the Chief
Justices' Conference held in 1999 it was unanimously resolved that the quota
' should normally be 66-213% and 33-1/3% and it is on this basis the
Government should determine the likely number of Bar Judges and then
consider whether the High Court Judges who are appointed from amongst the E
members of the Bar should not be given the same weightage as is now sought
to be given to the members of the Bar who are appointed to this Court as far
as pension is concerned.

To come up for further orders after the ensuing summer vacation.
F
R.P. Matter is pending.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "pension"Sign in to search