The Supreme Court mandated uniform pension for all retired High Court Judges under the principle of “One Rank One Pension” (OROP), irrespective of their tenure, source of appointment (Bar/District Judiciary), or status (Permanent/Additional Judge). It held that discrimination in pension violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court directed payment of full pension (₹13.5 lakh/₹15 lakh p.a.) under the High Court Judges Act, 1954, rejecting minimum service requirements. Service breaks and New Pension Scheme (NPS) participation were deemed irrelevant, with NPS contributions refunded to affected judges. Family pension/gratuity was extended to families of Additional Judges, and 10 years were added to service for gratuity calculations under Section 17A.
Facts Of The Case:
This batch of petitions, led by suo motu WP(C) No.4/2024 and consolidated writ petitions (e.g., WP(C) Nos. 993/2017, 1048/2017, 548/2018, 911/2018, 86/2019, 1542/2019, 660/2023, 102/2024), was filed by retired High Court Judges and families of deceased Judges. The petitioners challenged discriminatory pension practices by the Union of India. Key grievances included: (i) denial of full pension by excluding service rendered as District Judges; (ii) denial of full pension due to breaks between retirement as District Judges and appointment as High Court Judges; (iii) exclusion of Judges entering State judiciary after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) took effect (post-2004) from pension benefits under the High Court Judges Act, 1954; (iv) denial of full pension to Judges who retired as Additional Judges; (v) refusal of family pension and gratuity to widows/families of Additional Judges; and (vi) denial of Provident Fund benefits under Section 20 of the 1954 Act to Judges covered by NPS. The Union defended its policies, citing statutory provisions. The Supreme Court consolidated these petitions to resolve systemic disparities in judicial pensions.
Procedural History:
The proceedings originated from multiple writ petitions filed by retired High Court Judges and their families between 2017–2025 (e.g., *WP(C) Nos. 993/2017, 1048/2017, 548/2018*), challenging discriminatory pension policies. Recognizing systemic issues, the Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings (SMW(C) No. 4/2024) to comprehensively address disparities in judicial pensions. These petitions were consolidated with pending cases, including those involving denial of benefits to Additional Judges and NPS-affected judicial officers. During hearings, the Union of India acknowledged partial overlap with precedents like Raj Rahul Garg (2024) and Shailendra Singh (2024), but the Court identified unresolved legal gaps requiring authoritative determination. After extensive arguments from the Amicus Curiae, petitioners’ counsel, and the Attorney General, a three-judge bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai delivered a consolidated judgment on May 19, 2025, disposing of all petitions with binding directives for uniform pension implementation.
READ ALSO : Assam Citizenship Battle Lost: Supreme Court Rules Draft NRC Doesn’t Erase Foreigner Declaration
Court Observation:
The Court observed that High Court Judges constitute a homogenous constitutional class under Article 217, rendering any pension discrimination based on appointment source (Bar/District Judiciary), tenure, or status (Permanent/Additional Judge) a violation of Articles 14 and 16(1). It mandated “one rank one pension” (OROP) as intrinsic to judicial independence, directing full pension (₹13.5 lakh p.a. for Judges/₹15 lakh for Chief Justices) irrespective of service duration. Service as District Judges must be blended with High Court tenure for pension computation, and breaks between roles were deemed irrelevant. Judges entering service post-New Pension Scheme (NPS) implementation remain entitled to full pension under the High Court Judges Act, 1954, with States ordered to refund their NPS contributions. Additional Judges and their families were held eligible for identical pension, family pension, and gratuity benefits, with gratuity calculated by adding 10 years to actual service under Section 17A. All terminal benefits (Provident Fund, leave encashment) must align uniformly with the Act.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to implement “One Rank One Pension” (OROP) for all retired High Court Judges, mandating full pension of ₹13.5 lakh p.a. for Judges and ₹15 lakh p.a. for Chief Justices under the High Court Judges Act, 1954, irrespective of tenure, appointment source (Bar/District Judiciary), or status (Permanent/Additional Judge). Service as District Judges must be blended with High Court service for pension calculation; breaks between roles are irrelevant. Judges covered by the New Pension Scheme (NPS) are entitled to full pension, with States ordered to refund their NPS contributions (retaining state contributions). Additional Judges and their families receive identical pension/family pension benefits, with gratuity calculated by adding 10 years to actual service under Section 17A. All terminal benefits (Provident Fund, leave encashment) must be paid uniformly under the Act. Arrears with 6% interest must be settled within six months.
Case Details:
Case Title: In Re: Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court Citation:2025 INSC 726 Appeal No.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 4 of 2024 (with connected WPs) Date of Judgment:May 19, 2025 Judges/Justices: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih & Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Download The Judgement Here