"HC Judges from Service with NPS to Receive Lower Pension than Bar Appointees: Amicus to SC"

Today, the Supreme Court reviewed a case concerning disparities in pension benefits for High Court judges elevated from different career paths. Judges promoted to the High Court from district judiciary under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) are set to receive lower pension and provident fund benefits than those promoted directly from practicing as lawyers (the "bar"). The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench, including Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Some High Court judges from the district judiciary raised concerns because their salaries had been delayed due to complications with the General Provident Fund (GPF) accounts. Their NPS contributions were transferred to GPF accounts upon their elevation, which led to questions about the legality of this change, prompting the accountant general to seek guidance from the Ministry of Law and Justice. Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, acting as an advisor to the court, explained that there are now two categories of judges in Patna High Court: those elevated from the bar, who receive full Provident Fund and pension benefits, and those elevated from district courts, who do not. The judges from district courts are subject to the NPS, a contributory pension scheme, which provides less than the assured pensions that other judges receive. Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted that these judges face a disadvantage because they were not part of the contributory provident fund system prior to their elevation. Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Union, argued that these judges should not be compared to judges from the bar since they joined under different conditions. The government introduced a Unified Pension Scheme in August to address NPS-related issues, but the division in benefits remains a concern. The amicus curiae emphasized that the Constitution should not create two classes of judges. Article 221, he argued, does not specify Provident Fund distinctions for judges, and financial independence should be ensured for all judges, regardless of how they were elevated. He suggested that treating judges differently based on their career path undermines the judiciary’s integrity and independence. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing a petitioner, added three key points: The Constitution does not allow Parliament to create different classes of judges. Article 221 specifies judges' salaries without permitting a split in benefits. A judge’s pension should not be decreased, even if they received higher benefits due to long service before their elevation. The Court will continue the hearing tomorrow. Background: In March 2023, the Supreme Court ordered the release of salaries for seven judges of the Patna High Court, whose GPF accounts had been closed after their elevation. The judges involved include Justices Shailendra Singh, Arun Kumar Jha, Jitendra Kumar, Alok Kumar, Sunil Dutta Mishra, Chandra Prakash Singh, and Chandra Shekhar Jha. They were initially under the NPS as district judges, and after their elevation, their NPS contributions were transferred to GPF accounts, sparking legal questions. Case Title: Justice Shailendra Singh And Ors. v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023 and connected matters www.legalmeet.in