Resignation qualifies as retirement: Bombay High Court grants pensionary benefits to its former judge

The Bombay High Court on Thursday ruled that resignation from office by a former judge of the High Court qualifies as 'retirement' under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954, entitling the individual to pensionary benefits [Pushpa Ganediwala v High Court of Judicature of Bombay]..The Court made the observation while granting pension to Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, a former additional judge of the Bombay High Court, who had voluntarily resigned in February 2022 after her tenure was not confirmed by the Collegium due to controversial rulings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre quashed an earlier order issued by the Bombay High Court Registrar that denied the petitioner her pension. "In the result, the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Registrar (Original Side), High Court, Bombay is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to pension with effect from 14/02/2022. The respondents are directed to fix and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from 14.02.2022 within a period of two months from today along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum," the Court held..Ganediwala had served as a District Judge before her elevation to the position of Additional Judge in 2019.However, she was not confirmed as a permanent judge but her tenure as an additional judge was extended in February 2021. This was on account of the infamous skin-to-skin judgment authored by her in January 2021 acquitting accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). However, she resigned on February 11, 2022 just before her extended term was set to end. Her resignation was officially accepted in March 2023. After her resignation, Ganediwala applied for pensionary benefits for her combined service as both a District Judge and an additional High Court Judge, totaling over 14 years..In November 2022, the High Court registrar informed her that she was not entitled to a pension since resignation does not constitute retirement under the 1954 Act.Ganediwala then approached the Bombay High Court against this decision.During the hearing, Ganediwala's counsel argued that the term 'retirement' should be interpreted broadly to include resignation as well since it represents cessation of service. .Conversely, the High Court registrar argued that 'retirement' should only refer to superannuation and not resignation. After hearing both the parties, the Court ruled in favour of Ganediwala. The Court referenced the dictionary meaning of 'retirement' which includes resignation as a synonym. "Thus, it is evident that the word ‘retirement’ is a word of wide import. The same means the conclusion of a career. One of the meanings of the word ‘retire’ is to ‘resign’," the Bench said..It also emphasized that the High Court's decision on the administrative side to deny pension was inconsistent with the treatment of other former judges. "It is also pertinent to note that five former Judges of this Court 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," the Court stated.It concluded that the entitlement to pension under the 1954 Act is triggered by 'retirement' and the mode of retirement, whether by superannuation or resignation, is immaterial. "It is evident that the entitlement of a judge to pension is on his retirement and the same includes an involuntary act as well inasmuch as retirement on account of ill-health is as contemplated by clause 14(c) of 1956 Act is an involuntary act. The resignation as well as the retirement, both result in the conclusion of the service career. In fact the resignation is one of the modes of retirement from service and is a voluntary act," the Court said. In case the legislature intended to confine the benefits of pension only to a judge who has retired on superannuation, it would have expressly said so, the Bench further stated."The word ‘retirement’ in Sections 14 and 15 of 1954 Act has not been used in a restricted sense to mean retirement on superannuation only," it added..The eligibility for pension depends on retirement and the mode of retirement is not relevant for the purpose of these provisions, the Court made it clear.Thus, it ruled in favour of Ganediwala and quashed the November 2022 communication from the registrar of Bombay High Court..Senior Advocates Sunil Manohar and Nikhil Sakhardande along with advocates Pralhad Paranjape Ankit B. Rathod, Onkar Bajaj, Atharva S. Manohar instructed by advocate Anshu Agrawal appeared for Justice Ganediwala.Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar along with Rahul Nerlekar represented the Bombay High Court administration.Government Pleader Neha S Bhide with Additional Government Pleaders O A Chandurkar and GR Raghuwanshi appeared for the State of Maharashtra.Read more about the judgment here. .[Read Judgment]