State Can't Justify Reduced Pay for Tribunal Member Due to Low Caseload; Supreme Court Upholds Dignity of Retired Judges

The Supreme Court, on September 27, emphasized the importance of treating retired High Court judges with dignity when appointing them to state tribunals and commissions. The court made this observation while hearing the State of Haryana’s challenge against a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision regarding the treatment of a retired judge appointed as the Chairperson of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra addressed the issue after the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ruled in favor of Retired Justice SD Anand. The High Court had directed the state government to ensure that Justice Anand’s terms of appointment, including his salary, were on par with the Chairpersons of other state tribunals, such as those for Tax and Backward Classes.

Background of the Case

Justice Anand was appointed as Chairperson of the Appellate Authority of HSPCB, but for 22 months, the terms and conditions of his appointment were left undecided. Consequently, Justice Anand approached the High Court, seeking clarity and fairness in his compensation. The single bench ruled in his favor in February 2022, and the division bench upheld this decision in December 2023, directing that his pending dues be paid on par with other similar appointments.

However, the State of Haryana challenged this ruling, arguing that Justice Anand’s lower salary was justified due to the lighter workload in his office. Dr. Hemant Gupta, Additional Advocate General for Haryana, pointed out that only 114 cases had been filed in the tribunal over two years, averaging just five cases per month.

Supreme Court’s Observations

During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud strongly opposed the state's reasoning, stating that the dignity of retired judges should not be tied to the number of cases they handle. The CJI remarked, "Can you tomorrow say that because a particular court had less work, the salary should be reduced by 30%? This is not the attitude the state should have towards the judiciary."

The bench emphasized that retired High Court judges, when appointed to tribunals, carry with them a wealth of judicial experience, and it is inappropriate to diminish their stature based on the tribunal's caseload. The CJI underscored the principle that once a retired judge is appointed, their dignity and the importance of the office they hold must be respected.

“The question is not how much work is associated with the office; the issue is the dignity of the retired High Court judges who come to serve at these tribunals. Whether there are 5000 matters or 50, their stature and the office they hold remain the same," stated the CJI.

Dismissal of the State’s Petition

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the State of Haryana’s Special Leave Petition (SLP), noting that it had been filed after an unexplained delay of 149 days. The bench refused to entertain further arguments from the state’s counsel.

Case Information

Petitioner: State of HaryanaRespondent: Justice S D Anand (Retd.)Case Number: Diary No. 20661/2024Counsel for Petitioners: Dr. Hemant Gupta (A.A.G.), Mr. Samar Vijay Singh (AOR), Mr. Shivang Jain (Adv.), Mr. Varun Goel (Adv.), Mr. Saurabh Gupta (Adv.), Ms. Sabarni Som (Adv.), Mr. Fateh Singh (Adv.).

The Supreme Court's decision in this matter serves as a reminder to state authorities to ensure that retired judges appointed to tribunal positions are accorded the respect and dignity befitting their experience and judicial stature.