Pension Parity - The Legal Chamber

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 ...

The Supreme Court ruled that employees absorbed by MPSEB from cooperative societies are entitled to pension under MPSEB rules, but only from their absorption date (15.03.2002), not their prior society service. Invoking Article 142, it mandated uniform treatment for all absorbed employees, upholding functional integration principles from Panchraj Tiwari (2014) while interpreting "qualifying service" under MP Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The Court rejected retrospective pension claims for pre-absorption periods as society service wasn’t state-regulated. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns employees of electricity distribution cooperative societies in Madhya Pradesh that were merged with the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB) in 2002 due to financial cri...

Tag: Pension Parity

Supreme Court : Mandates Full Pension for ALL Retired High Court Judges

Supreme Court Ends Pension Discrimination for Merged Employees: Pension Rights to MPSEB Absorbed Workers