The Supreme Court on Thursday raised concerns about the inadequate pension provided to district judges and instructed the Centre to address these issues promptly.
“We, being the guardian of the district judiciary, urge you (the attorney general and the solicitor general) to collaborate with the amicus curiae to find a solution,” said a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
The CJI highlighted “extremely hard cases,” including that of a district judge suffering from cancer, and noted that numerous petitions from district judges regarding pension grievances are being filed in the top court.
“District judges are receiving only Rs 15,000 as pension. They are generally elevated to high courts at around age 56 or 57 and retire with a pension of Rs 30,000 per month,” the bench, which also included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, observed. The CJI also pointed out that very few high court judges receive arbitration matters, and at age 60, they are often unable to pursue legal practice.
“Consider their social profile as well… they do not receive arbitration matters,” the bench remarked. Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, requested additional time to present their arguments on the pension issues affecting district court judges.
The bench acknowledged these submissions and postponed the hearing to August 27 on a plea filed by the All India Judges Association seeking the implementation of welfare measures for retired judges. Meanwhile, lawyer K. Parmeswar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, informed the bench that several states have started complying with the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) recommendations on pension arrears and other retirement benefits for judicial officers.
States have begun submitting compliance affidavits, the amicus curiae reported. On July 11, the top court had summoned the chief and finance secretaries of various states and Union Territories for failing to comply with the SNJPC recommendations. Expressing strong displeasure at the non-compliance, the bench remarked, “We know how to ensure compliance now. If we say the chief secretary must be present if the affidavit is not filed, it will not be filed. We are not sending them to jail but let them be here, and then an affidavit will be submitted.”
On January 10, the top court had ruled that uniformity in service conditions for judicial officers across the country was needed. It directed the formation of a two-judge committee in each high court to oversee the implementation of orders related to pay, pension, and other retirement benefits for judicial officers as per the SNJPC. The court expressed grave concern that, while other services had their conditions revised as far back as January 1, 2016, similar issues for judicial officers remain unresolved eight years later. It noted that retired judges and the family pensioners of deceased judges are also awaiting resolution.
The SNJPC recommendations address pay structure, pension, family pension, allowances, and the establishment of a permanent mechanism for determining service conditions for the district judiciary.
