News of April 1, 2014
The
Supreme Court held on Monday that there should not be any disparity in the
pension of High Court judges, irrespective of the source from where they are
drawn.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice P.
Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana, while allowing a batch of
petitions filed by retired judges, said: irrespective
of the source from where the judges are drawn [from among district judges or
from among lawyers], they must be paid the same pension just as they have been
paid same salaries and allowances and perks as serving judges.
The Bench held that the fixation of
higher pension to judges drawn from the subordinate judiciary, who had served
for a shorter period, in contrast to judges drawn from the Bar, who had served
for longer period, was highly discriminatory and breach of Article 14.
The
classification itself is unreasonable without any legally acceptable nexus with
the object sought to be achieved. One rank, one pension must be the norm in
respect of a constitutional office, the
Bench ruled.
Writing the judgment, the CJI said: Only practicing
advocates, who have attained eminence, are invited to accept judgeship of the
High Court. Because of the status of the office of High Court judge, the
responsibilities and duties attached to the office, hardly any advocate of
distinction declines the offer. Though it may be a great financial sacrifice
for a successful lawyer to accept judgeship, it is the desire to serve society
and the high prestige attached to the office and the respect that the office
commands that propel a successful lawyer to accept judgeship. The experience
and knowledge gained by a successful lawyer at the Bar can never be considered
to be less important from any point of view vis-vis the experience
gained by a judicial officer.
The Bench, while directing the
government to amend the rules with effect from 2004, said when pensions are meagre because of the
shorter service, lawyers who attain distinction in the profession may not,
because of this anomaly, accept the office of judgeship. When capable lawyers
do not show inclination towards judgeship, the quality of justice declines.
No comments:
Post a Comment