&w=3840&q=100)
Supreme Court orders equal pensions for all HC judges, ending disparity
Applying the principle of 'one rank, one pension', the Supreme Court of India on Monday ordered that all retired High Court judges are entitled to receive full and equal pensions regardless of their source of entry and the date of appointment. The court highlighted that this is essential in ensuring equality while avoiding disparity in pensions.
'The dignity of the constitutional office demands that all judges be paid the same pension. Once a judge enters constitutional office, the source of entry loses relevance,' the court observed, as quoted by legal news website Law Trend.
The judgement was passed by the three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran. The top court was hearing a suo motu case related to judicial retirement benefits, along with writ petitions submitted by several retired judges.
Also Read
'Where equal treatment is given during service, any discrimination after retirement in terminal benefits would offend Article 14 of the Constitution,' the bench said.
Unified payment structure
Retired Chief Justices of High Courts will receive an annual pension of ₹15 lakh.
Retired High Court Judges, including former Additional Judges, are entitled to an annual pension of ₹13.5 lakh.
The Court directed that the 'one rank, one pension' principle be applied uniformly, regardless of whether a judge entered the judiciary from the Bar or through judicial service, or the length of service in either stream.
For judges elevated from the district judiciary, any gap in service between the two appointments shall not affect their entitlement to full pension.
Judges who began their careers in the district judiciary under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) and were later elevated to the High Court are also eligible for full pension. In such cases, the entire NPS contribution, along with accrued dividends, must be refunded by the respective state governments.
Family pensions must be extended to the legal heirs of High Court judges who died in harness, regardless of whether they held permanent or additional positions.
The Supreme Court observed that the conclusion was reached after examining Article 221 of the Constitution and the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The Court underscored the significance of ensuring equal treatment in its order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
42 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC declines urgent hearing on plea against animal sacrifice at Vishalgad Fort
New Delhi, June 6 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday declined to grant an urgent hearing to a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that permitted animal sacrifice near a Dargah located within Vishalgad Fort in Maharashtra's Kolhapur district during the Bakr-Eid celebrations on June 7. The plea, mentioned before a vacation bench comprising justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, sought immediate intervention against the June 3 High Court order allowing the ritual sacrifice at the historically protected site. The petitioner's counsel argued that Vishalgad Fort is a notified protected monument under the Maharashtra government and raised concerns about recurring law and order issues linked to such permissions in previous years. However, Justice Karol questioned the urgency of the plea, pointing out that similar permissions with restrictions were granted last year and that the High Court had already imposed conditions ensuring the sacrifices takes place within a 'closed and private area.' 'We are sure the High Court has considered this,' Justice Karol remarked. He also observed that multiple religious activities take place in protected monuments across the country, irrespective of the faith involved. The counsel acknowledged that the High Court had last year permitted animal slaughter under restricted conditions and noted that this year's order mirrored those provisions. Nevertheless, the counsel pressed for a listing, citing past tensions. Justice Karol, drawing from his tenure as Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court, recalled passing an order banning animal sacrifice, which was later modified by the Supreme Court to allow it within enclosed premises. 'Sitting in Tripura, I had banned animal slaughter there. This court modified the matter to say it will be carried out in enclosed premises,' he noted. The bench, however, refused to list the matter urgently, observing that the issue would become infructuous once the festival passes. 'What is the urgency? The matter will be infructuous anyhow,' Justice Karol stated. The June 3 Bombay High Court order, passed by justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Firdosh Pooniwalla, reiterated an earlier order dated June 14, 2024, which had permitted animal and bird sacrifice in a closed area near the Dargah, not in any public or open space. The same conditions were extended to cover the upcoming Bakr-Eid and the Urs festival scheduled from June 8 to June 12.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Rahul Gandhi repeats 'surrender' jibe at PM Modi
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Friday repeated his "surrender" jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which had recently evoked outrage from the BJP. The Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha used the expression at a 'Samvidhan Suraksha Sammelan' (symposium for protecting the Constitution) in Bihar, days after he had accused Modi of capitulation before US President Donald Trump. "Trump has said at least 11 times that he compelled Modi to surrender. Our PM is not able to even whimper in protest. The reason is, what Trump has said, is the reality," Gandhi said at Rajgir in Nalanda district. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Anvisa aprova solução para ajudar a reduzir gordura visceral da barriga em 7 dias! Você Mais Saudável Hoje Saiba Mais Undo Notably, Gandhi had claimed in Bhopal earlier this week that at the height of military conflict with Pakistan, Modi was told by Trump, "Narendra, surrender". The remark had left the BJP peeved, with the party's national president Jagat Prakash Nadda calling it "treason" and spokesman Sudhanshu Trivedi alleging that the utterance was far more offensive than what terrorists like Hafiz Saeed could have said about India. Live Events However, in his address at Rajgir, the former Congress president maintained: "I have been fighting the RSS and they surrender too easily. It does not take them long to write mercy petitions. Of course, modern technology may have led to replacement of pen and paper with WhatsApp". The allusion was to clemency petitions written to the British Raj by RSS ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, while he was lodged at the cellular jail in Andaman. The Congress leader said the alleged propensity to surrender was at work when Modi, a former RSS pracharak, gave in to the demand for a caste census. "I had told Modi, staring at him in the eye on the floor of the Parliament, that we will compel his government to hold a caste census," claimed Gandhi. But, the BJP will not allow a real caste census as it will finish their politics, he alleged. "Just look at how Modi calls himself an OBC and also claims there is no caste," Gandhi claimed. He also said there are two models of caste census. "One is that of the BJP, in which all is decided behind closed doors by bureaucrats, among whom there would hardly be anyone from the deprived castes. "The other model is that of (Congress-ruled) Telangana where Dalits' organisations and leaders are taken on board and participants in the survey freely air their experiences about things like untouchability," said Gandhi.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
US SC ruling opens door to reverse discrimination lawsuits over DEI
The US Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that majority-group employees—such as white or straight workers—must not face a higher burden of proof when suing for workplace discrimination. The verdict significantly alters how reverse discrimination claims will be handled across American workplaces, according to The New York Times. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after being passed over for promotions and later demoted. These positions, she said, went to gay colleagues with less experience or fewer qualifications. Lower courts had dismissed her lawsuit, citing a precedent that required majority-group plaintiffs to demonstrate 'background circumstances' showing that their employer was capable of discriminating against members of a traditionally dominant group. The Supreme Court rejected that standard. Title VII protects all equally Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.' The law protects every 'individual' equally, she wrote, regardless of identity. The ruling eliminates the need for additional evidence in such cases and sets a uniform standard across US courts. Until now, nearly half of federal appeals courts imposed stricter requirements on majority-group plaintiffs. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a concurring opinion questioning the logic of defining 'majority groups' in a diverse society. He called the idea that only 'unusual employers' discriminate against dominant groups 'nonsensical.' Thomas specifically pointed to widespread corporate and institutional use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which, he argued, may introduce bias against majority-group employees. Legal tide against DEI The decision comes amid growing political and legal scrutiny of DEI programmes in the US. It follows the Court's 2023 ruling that struck down race-based college admissions. Since returning to office, former President Donald Trump has taken aggressive steps to dismantle DEI efforts across federal agencies, schools, and corporations. Executive orders from his administration have revoked DEI requirements for contractors, ended related federal training programmes, and targeted officials involved in such initiatives. Universities and companies have responded by cancelling DEI events and cutting funding in anticipation of legal and political challenges. The Supreme Court's latest ruling could embolden more majority-group workers to file discrimination claims, creating new challenges for DEI compliance and implementation.
