P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJUversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                         [2014] 4 S.C.R. 562


A                    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
                                  v.
                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
               (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2002)

                         MARCH 31, 2014
B
          [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND
                      N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]

        JUDICIARY:
c
       Judicial service - High Court Judges (Salaries &
  Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 - s.14; First schedule Part I,
  Clause 2 - Pension for the retired judges of High Court who
  are directly appointed from the Bar - Clause 2 of Part I says
  that no pension is payable to the judges having less than 7
0
  years of service as a judge - Constitutional validity of - Held:
  The Judges, who are appointed under Article 217(2)(a) being
  members of the Judicial Service, even if they serve as a
  Judge of the High Court for only one or two years, get full
  pension benefits because of the applicability of Rule 26B or
E because of their earlier entry into judicial service - However,
  the Judges of the High Court, who are appointed from the Bar
  do not get similar benefit of full pension - This is arbitrary and
  discriminatory - s. 14 of the HCJ Act and Clause 2 of Part I of
  the First Schedule which governs the pension payable to
F Judges gives rise to unequal consequences - The existing
  scheme treats unequally the equals, which is violative of
  Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution - lffespective of the
  source from where the Judges are drawn, they must be paid
  the same pension just as they have been paid same salaries
G and allowances and perks as serving Judges - If the service
  of a judicial officer is counted for fixation of pension, there is
  no valid reason as to why the experience at Bar cannot be
  treated as equivalent for the same purpose - Thus, fixation

H                                562
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA               563


of higher pension to the Judges drawn from the Subordinate      A
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   B
acceptable nexus with the object sought to be achieved -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21.

      Scheme for post-retiral benefits to the retired Chief
Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts - C
Held: Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount
of Rs. 14, 0001- per month to the retired Chief Justices of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and an amount of Rs.12,0001
- per month to the retired Judges of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh for defraying the services of an orderly, driver,
security guard etc. and for meeting expenses incurred towards D
secretarial assistance on contract basis and a residential
telephone free of cost with number of free calls to the extent
of 1500 per month over and above the number of free calls
per month allowed by the telephone authorities to both the
retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court of Andhra E
Pradesh w.e.f. 01.04.2012 - Steps taken by the Government
of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already
formulated such scheme appreciated - Other States who
have so far not framed such scheme to also formulate the
same, depending on the local conditions, for the benefit of the F
retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective
High Courts as early as possible.

    The instant writ petitions were filed by the former
Judges of the various High Courts as well as the                G
Association of the Retired Judges of the Supreme Court
and the High Courts elevated from the Bar. The prayer
in the writ petitions was that for the purpose of
determining the maximum pension permissible under
Part-I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges
                                                                H
    564    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014) 4 S.C.R.


A (salaries and conditions of Service) Act, 1954, the number
  of years practiced as an Advocate should be taken into
  account and should be added to the service as a Judge
  of the High Court. It was further stated that in respect of
  Part-Ill of the First Schedule, which dealt with the Judges
B elevated from the State Judicial Service, almost all the
  Judges get full pension even if they have worked as a
  Judge of the High Court for 2 or 3 years and their entire
  service is added to their service as a Judge of the High
  Court for computing pension under this Part. For this
c reason, the members of the subordinate judiciary get
  more pension than the Judges elevated from the Bar on
  retirement. The petitioners prayed that though Part-I and
  Part-Ill Judges hold equivalent posts, they are not
  similarly situated in regard to pension and retirement
  benefits which is breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the
0
  Constitution of India and one rank one pension must be
  the norm in respect of a constitutional office. In appeal
  4248-49/14, it was further prayed that the retired Judges
  of the High Courts should also be given enhanced
E allowance for domestic help/peon/driver, telephone
  expenses and other secretarial assistance.

        Disposing of the writ petitions and the appeal 4248-
    49/14, the Court

F       HELD: 1. The Constitution of India provides for three-
  tier judicial system. The Union Judiciary-Establishment
  and Constitution of Supreme Court of India (Articles 124
  to 147); The High Courts in the States (Articles 214 to 231)
  and Subordinate Courts (Article 233 to 237). The
G Constitution of India also provides for appointment of
  Judges from amongst the members of the Bar at all the
  three levels. The appointment of the Judges of the
  Supreme Court is governed by Article 124(3), (a), (b) and
  (c) of the Constitution. It envisages appointment from
H three sources: (i) from amongst the Judges of the High
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA            565


Court having service of at least five years; (ii) the        A
members of the Bar having a standing of not less than
10 years; and (iii) any person, who is, in the opinion of
the President, is a distinguished jurist. The appointment
of a Judge of the High Court is governed by Article
217(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution which envisages        B
appointments from two different sources: (a) from
amongst the Judicial officers who have held the office for
at least 10 years; and (b) the members of the Bar, who
have been Advocates of a High Court for at least 10
years. The appointment of District Judges is governed by     C
Article 233(2) of the Constitution which provides that a
person not already in the service of the Union or of the
State shall only be eligible to be appointed as a District
Judge if he has been for not less than seven years an
advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High
Court for appointment. [Paras 6 to 9] [572-D-H; 573-A-B]     D
     2. The Supreme Court Judges (Salaries & Conditions
of Service) Act, 1958, (SCJ Act), the HCJ Act and the
Rules made thereunder, regulate their salary and
conditions of service. The provisions under both the Acts E
were similar prior to the Amendment Act, 2005. The
service conditions of the Judges of the subordinate
courts are governed by the Service Rules made under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Section 13 of the
SCJ Act read with Clause 2 of Part-I of the Schedule deals F
with the pension payable to the retired Judges of the
Supreme Court. Similarly, Section 14 of the HCJ Act read
with Clause 2 of Part-I of the First Schedule deals with
the pension payable to the retired Judges of the High
Courts. The provisions under both the Acts were similar G
prior to the Amendment Act, 2005. Clause 2 of Part-I to
the First Schedule of the said Act deals with the pension
for the retired Judges of the High Court, who are directly
appointed from the Bar. Clause (2) of Part I of the First
Schedule implies that no pension is payable to the H
    566   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   Judges having less than 7 years of service as a Judge.
    The above Section further shows that for a Judge of the
    High Court to receive full pension benefits, he should
    have completed 12 years of service as a Judge of the
    High Court. Section 13 and Clause 2 of the Schedule to
B   the SCJ Act earlier contained similar prohibition with
    regard to the eligibility of pension to the Judges
    appointed from the Bar as contained in the HCJ Act.
    Both the Acts provide that no pension shall be payable
    to a Judge who has less than 7 years of service. [para
    10 to 14] [573-B-E; 574-A-B, E-F, G-Hj 575-A]
c
         3. The Government, vide Amendment Act, 2005 (46/ .
    2005), added Section 13A to the SCJ Act. The condition
    of minimum 7 years of service as a Judge to become
    eligible for pension was omitted from the Section as well
D   as from Clause 2 of its Schedule. [para 16] [576-E, GJ
         4. In the three-tier judicial system provided by the
    Constitution, members of the Bar, who join the Higher
    Judicial Service at the District Judges level, on
    retirement, get the benefit of 10 years addition to their
E
    service for the purposes of pension (Rule 26B of the
    DHJS Rules). Judges of the Supreme Court, who are
    appointed from the Bar given a period of 10 years to their
    service for the purposes of pension (Section 13A of the
    Amendment Act, 2005). However, the benefit of 10 years
F
    addition to their service for the purposes of pension is
    being denied to the Judges of the High court appointed
    from the Bar, which is arbitrary and violative of Article
    14 of the Constitution of India. The Explanation (aa)
    appended to Article 217(2) of the Constitution of India
G   envisages that, "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,
H
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA              567


requiring special knowledge of law after he became an          A
advocate." The explanation thus treats the experience of
an Advocate at the Bar and the period of judicial office
held by him at par. [Paras 18, 19] [577-D-G]
     5. The judges, who are appointed under Article            8
217(2)(a) being members of the Judicial Service, even if
they serve as a Judge of the High Court for only one or
two years, get full pension benefits because of the
applicability of Rule 26B or because of their earlier entry
into judicial service. However, the Judges of the High         C
Court, who are appointed from the Bar do not get similar
benefit of full pension, which is arbitrary and
discriminatory. Section 14 of the HCJ Act and Clause 2
of Part I of the First Schedule which governs the pension
payable to Judges gives rise to unequal consequences.
The existing scheme treats unequally the equals, which         D
is violative of Articles .14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. To remove the above discrimination, in the Chief
Justices Conference held on April 5 and 6, 2013, it was,
inter a/la, resolved that, "for pensionary benefits, ten
years' practice as an advocate be added as a qualifying        E
service, for Judges elevated from the Bar." (Resolution
No.18 (viii). It fully supports the petitioner's submission.
[Paras 20 to 22] [577-H; 578-A-E]

    Union of India vs. Devki Nandan Agarwal AIR 1992 SC        F
196 - held inapplicable.

     6. 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. Only practicing
Advocates who have attained eminence are invited to
accept Judgeship of the High Court. Because of the             H
    568     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A status of the office of High Court Judge, the
  responsibilities and duties attached to the office, hardly
  any advocate of distinction declines the offer. Though it
  may be a great financial sacrifice to a successful lawyer
  to accept Judgeship, it is the desire to serve the society
B and the high prestige attached to the office and the
  respect the office commands that propel a successful
  lawyer to accept Judgeship. The experience and
  knowledge gained by a successful lawyer at the Bar can
  never be considered to be less important from any point
c of view vis-a-vis the experience gained by a judicial
  officer. If the service of a judicial officer is counted for
  fixation of pension, there is no valid reason as to why the
  experience at Bar cannot be treated as equivalent for the
  same purpose. [para 24] [578-G-H; 579-A-D]
D      Ku/dip Singh vs. Union of India (2002) 9 SCC 218: 2002
  (3) SCR 620; Govt. ofNCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. All India Young
  Lawyers' Association (Registered) And Anr(2009) 14 SCC 49:
  2009 (3) SCR 555; A// India Judges Association vs. Union
  of India AIR 1992 SC 165; All India Judges Association vs.
E Union of/ndia AIR 1993 SC 2493: 1993(1) Suppl. SC~ 749
    - referred to.

      7. The fixation of higher pension to the Judges drawn
  from the Subordinate Judiciary who have served for
F 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
G the object sought to be achieved. The meager pension for
  Judges drawn from the Bar and served for less than 12
  years on the Bench adversely affects the image of the
  Judiciary. When pensions are meager because of the
  shorter service, lawyers who attain distinction in the
  profession may not, because of this anomaly, accept the
H
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA               569


office of Judgeship. When capable lawyers do not show           A
inclination towards Judgeship, the quality of justice
declines. 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      B
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 discrimination in the fixation of their pensions         c
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. When a Civil Servant
retires from service, the family pension is fixed at a higher
                                                                0
rate whereas in the case of Judges of the High Court, it
is fixed at a lower rate. No discrimination can be made in
the matter of payment of family pension. The expenditure
for pension to the High Court Judges is charged on the
Consolidated Fund of India under Article 112(3)(d)(iii) of      E
the Constitution. Thus, for pensionary benefits, ten years'
practice as an advocate should be added as a qualifying
service for Judges elevated from the Bar. Further, in
order to remove arbitrariness in the matter of pension of
the Judges of the High Courts elevated from the Bar, the
reliefs, as mentioned above are to be reckoned from             F
01.04.2004, the date on which Section 13A was inserted
by the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries
and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2005 (46 of
2005). Requisite amendment must be carried out in the
High Court Judges Rules, 1956 with regard to post-retiral       G
benefits as has been done in relation to the retired
Judges of the Supreme Court in terms of amendment
carried out by Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges
Rules, 1959. [Paras 25 to 29) [579-D-H; 580-A-G]
                                                                H
    570     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A Civil appeal 4248-49/14

         8. With reference to the claim for the retired judges,
    in the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices
    of the High Courts held on 18.09.2004, a Resolution was
    passed. Pursuance thereto, most of the States in the
8
    country extended various post-retiral benefits to the
    retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective
    High Courts. By G.O.Ms.No. 28 dated 16.03.2012 issued
    by Law Department, Government of A.P., sanctioned an
    amount of Rs.14,000/- p.m. to the retired Chief Justices of
C   the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and an amount of
    Rs.12,000/- p.m. to the retired Judges of the High Court
    of A.P. for defraying the services of an orderly, driver,
    security guard etc. and for meeting expenses incurred
    towards secretarial assistance on contract basis and a
D   residential telephone free of cost with number of free calls
    to the extent of 1500 p.m. over and above the number of
    free calls per month allowed by the telephone authorities
    to both the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High
    Court of A.P. w.e.f. 01.04.2012. The steps taken by the
E   Government of A.P. and other States who have already
    formulated such scheme are appreciated. The States who
    have not so far framed such scheme should formulate the
    same, depending on the local conditions, for the benefit
    of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the
F   respective High Courts as early as possible. [paras 32 to
    34] (581-C-D, F-H; 581-A-C]
                        Case Law Reference:
     2002 (3) SCR 620              referred to        Para 15
G
     2009 (3) SCR 555              referred to        Para 16
     AIR 1992 SC 196               held inapplicable Para 23
     AIR 1992 SC 165               referred to        Para 23
H    1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 749       referred to        Para 23
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA               571


   CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the        A
Constitution of India.

    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2002.
                           WITH
W.P.(C) No. 523 of 2002, 38 of 2003, 524 of 2002, 37 of 2003,   B
465 of 2005, and C.A. Nos. 4248-4249 of 2014.
      A. Mariarputham AG, Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, M.N. Rao,
P.P. Rao, Pravin H. Parekh, S.K. Dubey, M.R. Calla,
Fakhruddin, C.M. Nayar, S.K. Agarwal, A.K. Shrivastava, J.S.    C
Attri, Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, K. Padmanabam Nair, S.S.
Shamshery, Krishna Sarma, Suryanarayana S, Manjit Singh,
AAGs, Promila, S. Thananjayan, Sameer Parekh, Sumit Goel,
Rukhmini Bobde, Abhishek Vined Deshmukh, Akshat
Kulshrestha, Swarnendu Chatterjee (for Parekh & Co.),
Anupam Lal Das, Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, Ruchi Kohli,        D
Priyanka Bharihoke, D.K. Thakur, B.V. Balaram Das, lrshad
Ahmad, Abhisth Kumar, Raman Yadav, Rachana Srivastava,
Utkarsh Sharma, Pratiksha Chaturvedi, B. Balaji, R. Rakesh
Sharma, S. Anand, A. Selvin Raja, Gopal Singh, Manish
Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas,          E
Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Ashok
Mathur, Sunil Fernandes, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Arputham,
Aruna & Co., Hemantika Wahi, Preeti Bhardwaj, Harshvardhan
Singh Rathore, Riku Sarma, Navnit Kumar (for Corporate Law
Group), Anip Sachthey, Mohit Paul, Apoorv Kurup, Aniruddha      F
P. Mayee, Charudatta Mahindarkar, K. Enatoli Serna, Amit
Kumar, Pragati Neekhra, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish,
Vivekta Singh, Nupur Choudhary, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
Balasubramanian, K.V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, Jayesh Gaurav,
Ratan        Kumar      Chaudhuri,       V.G.     Pragasam,     G
Praburamasubramanian, S.J. Aristotle, Ranjan Mukherjee, C.D.
Singh, Sunil K. Jain, Sachin Sharma, Ashok K. Mahajan, P.
Parmeswaran, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Rajiv Nanda, R.
Nedumaran, Sanjay R. Hegde, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Avijit
Bhattacharjee, R. Sathish, G.N. Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta, D.S.
                                                                H
    572      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   Mahra, Naresh K. Sharma, Kamini Jaiswal, T.C. Sharma, T.
    Harish Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,
    G. Prakash, G.N. Reddy, A. Venayagam Balan, Asha Joseph,
    V.S. Lakshmi, Varinder Kumar Sharma for the appearing
    parties.
B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. The main question which arises
    for consideration is whether High Court Judges, who are
    appointed from the Bar under Article 217(2)(b) of the
c   Constitution of India, on retirement, are entitled for an addition
    of 10 years to their service for the purposes of their pension?
       2. The above petitions have been filed by former Judges
  of the various High Courts of the country as well as by the
  Association of the Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and
D the High Courts elevated from the Bar.
        3. The petitioners have prayed that the number of years
  practiced as an advocate shall be taken into account and shall
  be added to the service as a Judge of the High Court for the
E purpose of determining the maximum pension permissible
  under Part-I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges
  (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (in short 'the
  HCJ Act'). It was further stated that'in respect of Part-Ill of the
  First Schedule, which deals with the Judges elevated from the
  State Judicial Service, almost all the Judges get full pension
F even if they have worked as a Judge of the High Court for 2 or
  3 years and their entire service is added to their service as a
  Judge of the High Court for computing pension under this Part.
  For this reason, the members of the subordinate judiciary get
  more pension than the Judges elevated from the Bar on
G retirement.
       4. In view of the above, the petitioners prayed that though
  Part-I and Part-Ill Judges hold equivalent posts, they are not
  similarly situated in regard to pension and retirement benefits
  which is breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
H and one rank one pension must be the norm in respect of a
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA                    573
              [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
constitutional office. It is further prayed that the retired Judges   A
of the High Courts should also be given enhanced allowance
for domestic help/peon/driver, telephone expenses and other
secretarial assistance.
    5. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records.                      B

      6. The Constitution of India provides for three-tier judicial
system. The Union Judiciary-Establishment and Constitution of
Supreme Court of India (Articles 124 to 147); The High Courts
in the States (Articles 214 to 231) and Subordinate Courts            c
(Article 233 to 237). The Constitution of India also provides for
appointment of Judges from amongst the members of the Bar
at all the three levels.
     7. The appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court
is governed by Article 124(3),(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution.   D
It envisages appointment from three sources: (i) from amongst
the Judges of the High Court having service of at least five
years; (ii) the members of the Bar having a standing of not less
than 10 years; and (iii) any person, who is, in the opinion of the
President, is a distinguished jurist.                                 E
     8. The a,ppointment of a Judge of the High Court is
governed by Article 217(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution which
envisages appointments from two different sources: (a) from
amongst the Judicial officers who have held the office for at
least 10 years; and (b) the members of the Bar, who have been         F
Advocates of a High Court for at least 10 years.
     9. The appointment of District Judges is governed by
Article 233(2) of the Constitution which provides that a person
not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only    G
be eligible to be appointed as a district judge if he has been
for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is
recommended by the High Court for appointment.
    10. The Supreme Court Judges (Salaries & Conditions of
Service) Act, 1958, (in short 'the SCJ Act'), the HCJ Act and         H
    574      SUP'REME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   the Rules made thereunder, regulate their salary and conditions
    of service. The provisions under both the Acts were similar
    prior to the Amendment Act, 2005. The service conditions of
    the Judges of the subordinate courts are governed by the
    Service Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of
8   India.
          11. Section 13 of the SCJ Act read with Clause 2 of Part-
    1 of the Schedule deals with the pension payable to the retired
  Judges of the Supreme Court. Similarly, Section 14 of the HCJ
  Act read with Clause 2 of Part-I of the First Schedule deals with
C the pension payable to the retired Judges of the High Courts.
  The provisions under both the Acts were similar prior to the
  Amendment Act, 2005. Relevant portion of Section 14 of the
  HCJ Act reads as follows:
          "14. Pension payable to Judges.- Subject to the
D         provisions of this Act, every Judge shall, on his retirement,
          be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and
          provisions in Part 1 of the First Schedule:
          Provided that no such pension shall be payable to a Judge
E         unless-
           (a)   he has completed not less than twE!IVe years of
                 service for pension; or

           (b)   he has attained the age of sixty-two years; or
F          (c)   his retirement is medically certified to be
                 necessitated by ill-health;"
       12. Clause 2 of Part-I to the First Schedule of the said Act
  deals with the pension for the retired Judges of the High Court,
G who are directly appointed from the Bar, which reads as under:-
          "2. Subject to the other provisions of this part, the pension
          payable to a Judge, to whom this part apply and who has
          completed not less than 7 years of service for pension shall
          be
H
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA                    575
              [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
     (a) for service as Chief Justice in any ' High Court,           A
     Rs.43,890/- per annum for each completed year of service;
     (b) for service as any other Judge in any High Court
     Rs.34,350/- per annum for each completed year of service.
     Provided that the pension under this paragraph shall in no
     case exceed Rs.5,40,000/- per annum in the case of Chief B
     Justice and Rs.4,80,000/- per annum in case of any other
     Judges."
      13. The above-noted Clause (2) of Part I of the First
Schedule implies that no pension is payable to the Judges c
having less than 7 years of service as a Judge. The above
Section further shows that for a Judge of the High Court to
receive full pension benefits, he should have completed 12
years of service as a Judge of the High Court. It is s'ubmitted
that when members of the Bar are offered the post of High
Court Judges, they are generally at the age of about 50 years D
or above and at the prime of their practice, which they have to
give up to serve the system. Therefore, many of them are
reluctant to accept the offer as the post-retirement benefits are
not attractive enough.
                                                                  E
      14. Section 13 and Clause 2 of the Schedule to the SCJ
Act earlier contained similar prohibition with regard to the
eligibility of pension to the Judges appointed from the Bar as
contained in the HCJ Act. Both the Acts provide that no
pension shall be payable to a Judge who has less than 7 years F
of service.
     15. In Ku/dip Singh vs. Union of India, (2002) 9 SCC 218,
the petitioner therein, who was appointed as a Judge of the
Supreme Court from the Bar, on his retirement was denied the
benefit of pension as he did not fulfill the requisite conditions.   G
Consequently, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court praying,
inter alia, (a) to take into account 10 years of practice at the
Bar in addition to his service for the purposes of pension. (b)
In the alternative, prayed for a direction to treat the appointees
under Article 124(3)(b) for the purposes of pension at par with      H
    576       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A the appointees under Article 124(3)(a). On 24.09.2002, while
  issuing notice, this Court passed the following order:-
          "1. 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
B         appointed directly from the Bar. Similar question also
          arises with regard to Bar appointees to the High Courts.
          2. Experience has shown that the Bar appointees
          especially, if they are appointed at the age of 50 years and
          above, get lesser pension than the Service Judge
c         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
D         Courts from amongst 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 2/3% of vacancies were filled from amongst
          members of the Bar and 33 1/3% from the judicial services.
E         It is only in the Conference of 4-12-1993 of the Chief
          Ministers and the Chief Justices that it was decided that
          the number of vacancies from amongst the judicial officers
          "might go up to 40%". The decision of 4-12-1993, cannot
          mean that the number of Judges from the services has to
F         be 40%. The normal practice which has been followed was
          2/3rds and 1/3rd 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
G         members of the Bar are not available. But this cannot 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
          2/3% and 33 1/3% and it is on this basis the Government
          shoufd determine the likely number of Bar Judges and
H
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA                 577
              [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
    then consider whether the High Court Judges who are A
    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
    this Court as far as pension is concerned."
                                          (Emphasis supplied)    B
    16. The Government, vide Amendment Act, 2005 (46/
2005), added Section 13A to the SCJ Act which reads .as
under:
     "Subject to the provision of this Act, a period of ten years C
     shall be added to the service of a Judge for the purpose
     of his pension, who qualified for appointment as such
     Judge under sub-clause (b) of Clause (3) of Article 124 of
     the Constitution."
                                                                  D
Therefore, the condition of minimum 7 years of service as a
Judge to become eligible for pension was omitted from the
Section as well as from Clause 2 of its Schedule. In view of
the amendment, the said writ petition was dismissed as
withdrawn on 06.12.2005. However, petitioner's writ petition E
and other connected matters remained pending.
     17. In Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Al/ India Young
Lawyers' Association (Registered) And Another, (2009) 14
SCC 49, a Lawyers' Association filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Delhi praying therein that the benefit of 15 years F
addition of service be given to the Judge, who is directly
appointed from the Bar to the Higher Judicial Service for the
purposes of pension. The writ petition was allowed and Rule
26B was ordered to be added to the Delhi Higher Judicial
Service Rules, 1970. The Govt. of NCT, Delhi challenged the G
said judgment and order and this Court upheld the validity of
Rule 26B, however, the period to be added to the service for
the purposes of pension, was reduced to 10 years or actual
practice at the Bar whichever is less.

                                                                 H
    578      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014] 4 S.C.R.


A      18. In the three-tier judicial system provided by the
  Constitution, members of the Bar, who join the Higher Judicial
  Service at the District Judges level, on retirement, get the
  benefit of 10 years addition to their service for the purposes of
  pension (Rule 26B of the DHJS Rules). Judges of the Supreme
B Court, who are appointed from the Bar given a period of 10
  years to their service for the purposes of pension (Section 13A
  of the Amendment Act, 2005). However, the benefit of 10 years
  addition to their service for the purposes of pension is being
  denied to the Judges of the High court appointed from the Bar,
C which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
  of India.
       19. The Explanation (aa) appended to Article 217(2) of the
  Constitution of India envisages that, "in computing the period
  during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court,
o 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." The explanation thus
  treats the experience of an Advocate at the Bar and the period
E of judicial office held by him at par.
         20. The Judges, who are appointed under Article 217(2)(a)
    being members of the Judicial Service, even if they serve as a
    Judge of the High Court for only one or two years, get full
    pension benefits because of the applicability of Rule 26B or
F   because of their earlier entry into judicial service. However, the
    Judges of the High Court, who are appointed from the Bar do
    not get similar benefit of full pension, which is arbitrary and
    discriminatory.
      21. Section 14 of the HCJ Act and Clause 2 of Part I of
G the First Schedule which governs the pension payable to
  Judges gives rise to unequal consequences. The existing
  scheme treats unequally the equals, which is violative of Articles
  14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
H         22. To remove the above discrimination, in the Chief
     P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA                     579
               [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Justices Conference held on April 5 and 6, 2013, it was, inter A
a/ia, resolved that, "for pensionary benefits, ten years' practice
as an advocate be added as a qualifying service, for Judges
elevated from the Bar." (Resolution No.18 (viii). It fully supports
the petitioner's submission.
     23. The ratio of the decision cited by the respondent in B
Union of India vs. Devki Nandan Agarwal, AIR 1992 SC 196
is not applicable because the reliefs prayed therein were
entirely different and also because it is per incuriam in view of
the subsequent decisions of this Court of equal strength in All
India Judges Association vs. Union of/ndia, AIR 1992 SC 165; C
and Al/ India Judges Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1993
SC 2493 wherein the requirement of independence of the
judiciary have been underlined as also two decisions cited
above i.e. Ku/dip Singh (supra) and All India Young Lawyers'
Association (supra).                                              D
      24. 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               E
paid same salaries and allowances and perks as serving
Judges. Only practicing Advocates who have attained
eminence are invited to accept Judgeship of the High Court.
Because of the status of the office of High Court Judge, the
responsibilities and duties attached to the office, hardly any          F
advocate of distinction declines the offer. Though it may be a
great financial sacrifice to a successful lawyer to accept
Judgeship, it is the desire to serve the society and the high
prestige attached to the office and the respect the office
commands that propel a successful lawyer to accept Judgeship.           G
The experience and knowledge gained by a successful lawyer
at the Bar can never be considered to be less important from
any point of view vis-a-vis the experience gained by a judicial
officer. If the service of a judicial officer is counted for fixation
of pension, there is no valid reason as to why the experience           H
    580     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   at Bar cannot be treated as equivalent for the same purpose.
         25. 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
B   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.
          26. The meager pension for Judges drawn from the Bar
c   and served for less than 12 years on the Bench adversely
    affects the image of the Judiciary. When pensions are meager
    because of the shorter service, lawyers who attain distinction
    in the profession may not, because of this anomaly, accept the
    office of Judgeship. When capable lawyers do not show
    inclination towards Judgeship, the quality of justice declines.
0
       27. 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
E 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 discrimination in the fixation of their pensions
  depending upon the source from which they were appointed is
F 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. When a Civil Servant retires from service, the family
  pension is fixed at a higher rate whereas in the case of Judges
G of the High Court, it is fixed at a lower rate. No discrimination
  can be made in the matter of payment of family pension. The
  expenditure for pension to the High Court Judges is charged
  on the Consolidated Fund of India under Article 112(3)(d)(iii)
  of the Constitution.
H
    P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA                581
              [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
      29. In the light of what is discussed, we accept the A
petitioners' claim and declare that for pensionary benefits, ten
years' practice as an advocate be added as a qualifying
service for Judges elevated from the Bar. Further, in order to
remove arbitrariness in the matter of pension of the Judges of
the High Courts elevated from the Bar, the reliefs, as mentioned B
above are to be reckoned from 01.04.2004, the date on which
Section 13A was inserted by the High Court and Supreme
Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service)
Amendment Act, 2005 (46 of 2005). Requisite amendment be
carried out in the High Court Judges Rules, 1956 with regard C
to post-retiral benefits as has been done in relation to the
retired Judges of the Supreme Court in terms of amendment
carried out by Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges Rules,
1959.
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2014                                       D
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9558-9559 of 2010
    30. Leave granted.
     31. At the instance of the Association of retired Judges of
the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Division Bench of the E
High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur directed the State
Government to pay a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month to a retired
Chief Justice of the High Court to meet expenses of domestic
help/peon/driver/telephone expenses and secretarial
assistance etc. and Rs. 7,500/- per month to a retired Judge F
of the High Court for the same purposes. The said order shall
be effective from 01.02.2010. Questioning the same, the State
of Rajasthan has filed the above appeal.
     32. With reference to the above claim and the order of the
High Court, in the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief G
Justices of the High Courts held on 18.09.2004, the following
Resolution was passed: ·
    "18. Augmenting of post-retiral benefits of Judges.
    Xxxxxxxx                                                    H
    582       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A          [vi] As regards post-retiral benefits to the retired Judges
           of the High Courts, the scheme sanctioned by the State
           of Andhra Pradesh be adopted and followed in all the
           States, except where better benefits are already available."
        33. It is brought to our notice that in pursuance of the said
B Resolution, most of the States in the country have extended
  various post-retiral benefits to the retired Chief Justices and
  retired Judges of the respective High Courts. By G.O.Ms.No.
  28 dated 16.03.2012 issued by Law Department, Government
  of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount of Rs.14,000/- per
C month to the retired Chief Justices of the High Court of Andhra
  Pradesh and an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the retired
  Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for defraying the
  services of an orderly, driver, security guard etc. and for meeting
  expenses incurred towards secretarial assistance on contract
o basis and a residential telephone free of cost with number of
  free calls to the extent of 1500 per month over and above the
  number of free calls per month allowed by the telephone
  authorities to both the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the
  High Court of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.04.2012.
E       34. While appreciating the steps taken by the Government
    of Andhra Pradesh and other States who have already
    formulated such scheme, by this order, we hope and trust that
    the States who have not so far framed such scheme will
    formulate the same, depending on the local conditions, for the
F   benefit of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the
    respective High Courts as early as possible preferably within
    a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this
    order.
       35. All the Writ Petitions and the appeals are disposed of
G on the above terms. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions,
  no orders are required in the intervention application.


    D.G.                      Writ Petitions & Appeals disposed of.
H