Bombay High Court allows petition by Justice Pushpa Ganediwala against denial of pension

The Bombay High Court on Thursday allowed the petition filed by one its former judges, Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala, challenging denial of pensionary benefits to her..Justice Ganediwala, an additional judge of the High Court, had taken voluntary retirement from service in February 2022 after the Collegium declined to confirm her as a permanent judge due to her controversial rulings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCOS Act).She then approached the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court claiming she was denied pensionary benefits as applicable to High Court judges. A Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre today held that she is entitled to the same."In the result impugned order dated 2/11/2022 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to pensionary benefits from February 14, 2022," the Court held.The order has to be implemented within two months, the Court directed..Ganediwala authored the infamous skin-to-skin judgment in January 2021 acquitting accused under the POCSO Act and subsequently took voluntary retirement from service after the Collegium refused to confirm her as a permanent judge. .Justice Ganediwala started her judicial career in 2007 when she was appointed District Judge. She was appointed additional judge of Bombay High Court on February 8, 2019 for a period of two years.On January 12, 2021, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended that she be made a permanent judge of the High Court.However, this was withdrawn by the Collegium after certain contentious judgments authored by the judge came to light.The former judge had handed down three acquittals under the POCSO Act in three separate cases, all within a week.In a judgment delivered on January 14, 2021, she had reversed a conviction order after noting that there was nothing supporting the prosecution's case for rape (Jageshwar Wasudeo Kawle v. State of Maharashtra).On January 15, 2021 she held that the act of holding hands of a minor or the zip of the pants of the accused being open at the relevant time, does not amount to sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act (Libnus v. State of Maharashtra).A third judgment was delivered on January 19 in which she ruled that the act of pressing the breast of a 12-year-old child without removing her top will not fall within the definition of ‘sexual assault’ under Section 7 of POCSO (Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra).This third ruling which came to be known as skin-to-skin judgment had caused an uproar, with the Supreme Court eventually overturning the same.These rulings prompted the Collegium to recall its recommendation by which it had agreed to make Justice Ganediwala a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court.The Union Ministry of Law and Justice on February 21, 2021, accepted the Supreme Court Collegium's revised decision to not make her a permanent judge and extended her tenure as an additional judge by one more year. A year later, on February 10, 2022, she tendered her resignation since she was neither recommended for a permanent judgeship by the Collegium nor was her tenure as additional judge extended.She filed the present plea before the High Court after she was denied pensionary benefits at par with High Court judges. .The former judge-turned-lawyer claimed that after her resignation, she had applied to the High Court officials informing them that she was not receiving any pensionary benefits. The registrar of the High Court then informed her that she was not eligible or entitled to pension as a High Court judge or other applicable benefits.The then Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni gave his opinion that since Ganediwala had not retired as a High Court judge, she would not be entitled to a pension of the same rank.Ganediwala challenged the Court registry's communication before the High Court through a writ petition filed through advocate Akshay Naik.Ganediwala in her plea argued that she is entitled to a pension irrespective of whether she superannuated or took voluntary retirement from the judicial office. She claimed that she worked as an additional judge of the High Court for close to 3 years but had worked as a district judge for over 11 years and 3 months. .Senior Advocates Sunil Manohar and Nikhil Sakhardande along with advocates Pralhad Paranjape, Ankit B Rathod, Onkar Bajaj and Atharva S Manohar instructed by advocate Anshu Agrawal appeared for Justice Ganediwala..[Read Judgment].[Read Live Coverage]