Supreme Court Upholds ‘One Rank One Pension’ for Retired High Court Judges: Landmark Ruling Strengthens Equality in Constitutional Offices

New Delhi, May 19, 2025 — In a landmark ruling that reinforces the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, the Supreme Court of India has held that all retired High Court judges are entitled to equal and full pension, regardless of their date of appointment or the source of entry—whether from the Bar or judicial services.

The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, decisively clarified the pension entitlements of judges holding constitutional office, laying down nine guiding principles that aim to standardize and rectify pension anomalies prevalent across various High Courts.

Background of the Case

The petitions addressed by the Court arose from disparities in the pension computation for High Court judges who retired under different circumstances—particularly those elevated from the subordinate judiciary or the legal profession. Some judges received lower pension benefits due to service gaps, pension ceilings, or inconsistencies in applying earlier judgments.

The Supreme Court invoked its constitutional authority under Article 32 to unify and clarify the law, affirming that such inconsistencies violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law.

Key Legal Principles Laid Down by the Court

1. Entire Service to be Counted for Pension

The pension of a retired High Court judge must be computed by considering the entire service rendered as a judge, with the last pay drawn as a High Court judge serving as the benchmark—regardless of their prior salary as a District Judge.Reference: M.L. Jain v. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 355.

2. Pension Ceiling is Unconstitutional

The Court invalidated any existing ceiling on judicial pension as per the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, stating it is discriminatory under Article 14.Reference: M.L. Jain (II) (1991) 1 SCC 644.

3. No Discrimination Based on Entry Route

Judges elevated from the Bar or judicial services are to be treated equally with respect to post-retirement benefits. The route of appointment cannot be a ground for differential treatment.Reference: P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India (2014) 12 SCC 1.

4. Pre-High Court Experience Must Be Recognized

The Court emphasized that prior experience—either as a member of the Bar or in the lower judiciary—should be factored into the computation of pension.Reference: Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India (2024 INSC 862).

5. Invalid Classification Between Bar and Service Appointees

Any classification of judges for pension purposes based on whether they came from the Bar or judicial service is arbitrary and lacks a rational nexus with the object of the law.

6. ‘One Rank, One Pension’ Must Apply

The Court reiterated that One Rank, One Pension (OROP) is not merely a policy but a constitutional imperative for all persons holding constitutional offices.

7. Uniformity in Family Pension

Family pension must also be governed by the same principles of equality and non-discrimination, extending the protection to the families of judges.

8. Service Breaks Cannot Deny Pension

Where there is a gap between retirement from the district judiciary and elevation to the High Court, such a break cannot be used to deny or reduce pension benefits.

9. GPF Entitlement Despite NPS

Judges appointed under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) but elevated to the High Court are entitled to General Provident Fund (GPF) benefits under the HCJ Act.Reference: Justice Shailendra Singh v. Union of India.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling brings critical uniformity in the treatment of retired judges across jurisdictions and affirms the idea that constitutional office bearers deserve parity in post-retiral benefits, irrespective of bureaucratic or procedural nuances. It ensures that judicial independence and dignity, which are foundational to the rule of law, are preserved even after retirement.

Furthermore, this decision is likely to serve as a precedent for other constitutional functionaries and will impact not just pending litigations but also policy frameworks around judicial pensions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s pronouncement is more than just an administrative clarification—it is a restatement of constitutional fidelity. By affirming the principle of "One Rank, One Pension" for High Court judges, the Court has taken a decisive step toward institutional integrity, equal treatment, and justice beyond tenure.

Case Title: In Re: Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court, SMW(C) No. 4/2024 and connected matters.

Date of Judgment: May 19, 2025.