Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIAversusBIDHUBHUSHAN MALIK AND OTHERS

Citation
1984 INSC 89
Decided
24 April 1984
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

The clause "and who has retired on or after the 1st day of October 1974" in paragraph 10 of the First Schedule is unconstitutional and is struck down; all High Court judges are entitled to pension irrespective of retirement date, with no arrears payable for periods preceding 1 October 1974.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the words "and who has retired on or after the 1st day of October 1974" (as printed in some versions as 1984) in paragraph 10 of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended). The petitioners argued that the provision was violative of the Constitution because it created a discriminatory class of retired judges with respect to pension entitlement. The Court held that the clause was unconstitutional and struck it down, holding that all High Court judges, including chief justices, are entitled to pension as computed under the Act irrespective of their retirement date, and that no arrears are payable for periods preceding 1 October 1974. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 3281 of 1979, which had read down the same provision, was affirmed. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the words "and who has retired on or after the 1st day of October 1974" in paragraph 10 of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) are constitutionally valid.
  • Whether retired High Court judges are entitled to pension irrespective of their date of retirement and whether any arrears of pension are payable for periods before the specified date.

Legislation cited

Subjects

ConstitutionalityPensionHigh Court JudgesService ConditionsStatutory InterpretationRetrospective Effect

Judgment

        550



    A                                    UNION OF INDIA
                                                   V•

                         BIDHUBHUSHAN. MALIK AND OTHERS

'                                           Aprf/·~4,1984                             ..
    B
                    (0. CHINNAPPA REDDY;.A.P, SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMiAH, JJ.J

                     High Court Judges (Condition• of Service) Act, 1954 (as ame,,ded)-         ,
              First Schedule-Para JO-Validity of,

    c                Affirming the decision of tho High Court and dismissing t.he special
              leave petition,
                                .
                   • HELD : (I) The words "and who has retired on or after the Jsl day' ~
                                                                                                    •
              of October, 1984" appearing in para 10 of the First Schedule to the High
              Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) are unconsti·
              mtional and are struck down. [SSO A]                    •
    D
                  · ' (2) The Judges (including the Chief Justices) of the High Courts are
              entitled lo pensfon as comput~ under the Act (as amended) irrespective of
              their date of. retirement. Bot they will not be entitled to ·ar~ars of pension
              for the period preceding October I, 1984, the date which continues to be
              releVant as. being one from which the libc~alised pension bCCame operative.
                                            ·                                  lsso e.:..,c]   ~
    E
                     Decision of Al/a/rabadHigh C~urt In W.P. No. 3281 of 1979 (Judgment
              delivered on March 2, 1983) upheld.·                ·            ··   ·

                     CIVIL AP)'ELLATB Ju1t1~DicrioN : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
              '.No. 9616 of 1983.
    F               From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd March, 1983 of the
              Allahabaa High Court in Writ' Petition No. 3281 of 1979.                         "'
                    K. Parasaran,. Attorney General, R.D.4 garwala and R.N. Poddar
•             for the Petitioner .
    G
                   . The Order of the <;;ourt was delivered by .

                    CH!NNAPPA REDDY, J. The Allahabad High Court has held:

                  '".:.... The High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, ..
    H         195·4, (as amended) ~hal1°be read down as under, in para 10 of the
                                                        \
                      UNION v. B!DHUBHUSHAN (Chinnappa Reddy, i.) ·
                                                             ~
                                                                               .551
        .First Schedule, the wordi "and win has retired on or after the !st'       A
         day of.October, 1974" are unconstitutional and are stru9k down. ·
    •    Omittin_g; the unconstitutional part it is declared that the Judges
          (including the. Chief Justices) of the High Court are entitled. to
        · pension as computed wider the High Court Judges (Condions of
         Service) Act, 1954, (as amended) irrespective of the date of retire·
          ment., The date October I, 1974, continues. to be relevant as being      JJ
          One from which the liberalised pension beeame operative underthe
          High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1976,
          irrespective of the date of retirement and hence there is no question
         .of payment of a1rears of pension for tli.e period preceding October
           1., 1974 ......... "
,                                                                                  c
                                                               •
                · For the reasons mentioned by the learned Judge's of the ,
           Allahabad High .Court in their Judgment, we agree with their           ' ·
           conclusion and dismiss the special kave petition .
                                 •
        · B:.S.K                                              Petition dismissM .




                     •




                                                                               .,


Search Indian case law

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

Try "Constitutionality"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.