IN THE judgement of the case Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala v. High Court of Judicature of Bombay & others, delivered on March 13, 2025, at the Principal Seat of the HC at Mumbai, the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre have held that the expression, ‘retirement’ in section 14 and 15(1) of the High Court Judges (salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 has been used in a broad sense and it includes the case of retirement on resignation as well. The criteria of entitlement to pension is retirement and mode of retirement for pension is irrelevant for the purpose of section 14 and 15(1) of the 1954 Act. Through this petition the Petitioner had challenged the communication of November 2, 2022 issued by the Registrar (Original Side) of the High Court, by which the petitioner, who was a former Judge of the High Court, was informed that she is not eligible for pension. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction to the respondents to fix and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from February 14, 2022 along with interest.

 

The petitioner was a practicing Advocate. On October 26, 2007, the petitioner was appointed as a District Judge. The collegium of the Supreme Court recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as a Judge of the Bombay HC on January 16, 2019. On the basis of that recommendation, a Notification of February 8, 2019 was issued under Article 224(1) of the Constitution of India by which the tenure of the petitioner as Additional Judge of the Bombay HC was extended with effect from February 13, 2021 for a period of one year. This tenure was to expire on February 12, 2022. The petitioner tendered resignation on February 11, 2022. The Union Ministry of Law and Justice by the Notification of March 14, 2023 notified the resignation of the petitioner.

 

On February 17, 2022, the petitioner applied to Registry of the HC, claiming pension on account of having rendered services as an Additional Judge of this HC for a period of 2 years 11 months and 29 days and as a District Judge for 11 years 3 months and 18 days. On November 2, 2022, the petitioner was informed by the Registry of the HC that she is not entitled to claim pension on the opinion given by the Government of India Under Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Office of the Principal Accountant General, (A & E) –II, Maharashtra, Nagpur, Legal Advisor and Joint Secretary, State Law & Judiciary Department and the Maharashtra Advocate General. On January 2, 2023, the petitioner submitted an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking copies of the information mentioned in the communication of November 2, 2022 sent by the Registry of this HC.

 

In response to the information sought by her, she has been informed that five former judges of this HC , who had tendered resignation, are being paid pension. In this backdrop of facts the petitioner approached the Court seeking relief. On perusal of section 14 of the 1954 Act, it is evident that a Judge on his retirement is entitled to pension subject to: (a) he has completing not less than 12 years service for pension; or (b) he has attained the age of 62 years, or and, in the case of a Judge holding office on the 5th day of October 1963, sixty years or; (c) His retirement is medically certified to be necessitated by ill-health. Section 15 deals with special provision for pension in respect of Judges who are members of service. Section 15 provides that every Judge who has held any other pensionable civil post under the Union or State, shall on his retirement, be paid pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part-III of the First Schedule. The solitary issue which arose for consideration in this petition was whether the expression “retirement” used in section 14 and 15(1) of the 1954 Act includes resignation as well.

 

The expression ‘retirement’ has not been defined under the 1954 Act. It is well settled when a word is not defined in the Act, it may be permissible to refer to the dictionary to find out the meaning of the word as is understood in common parlance (CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. -1999(3)SCC 632). Therefore, the meaning of expression ‘retirement’ as understood in common parlance has to be taken into account while ascertaining its meaning and it is permissible to refer to the dictionary. This expression has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition). It is evident that the word ‘retirement’ is a word of wide import. The same means conclusion of a career. One of the meanings of the word ‘retire’ is to ‘resign. It is a well settled rule of construction that to ascertain Legislative intent, all the constituent parts of the statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase and sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself. (Popatlal Shah v. State of Madras-AIR-1953 SC 274). It is equally well settled rule of statutory interpretation that the interpretation of the provisions must depend on the text and the same word may mean one thing in one context and another in different context. (Renaissance Hotel Holdings v. B Vijay Sai and others –(2022)5 SCC 1).

 

In the decision, D S Nakara v. Union of India- AIR 1983 SC 130, the Supreme Court has held that the right to pension is included in right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The HC has also noted pertinently that five former Judges of the Bombay HC, who had tendered their resignations are being paid the pension. However, no explanation worth name has been offered on behalf of the respondents for taking a different stand in the case of the petitioner alone. In final analysis, the HC has held that the expression ‘retirement’ used in section 14 and 15(1) of the 1954 Act, includes the word ‘resignation’ as well.

 

The impugned order passed by the Registrar (Original Side), Bombay High Court, on February 2, 2022 has been quashed and set aside. The HC has held the petitioner entitled to pension with effect from February 14, 2022. The HC has been directed on its Administrative Side to fix and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from February 14, 2022, within two months from March 13, 2025 along with 6 per cent per annum interest.