In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court has ruled that resignation from judicial office qualifies as “retirement” under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954, making a former judge eligible for pensionary benefits.
The verdict was delivered in favor of Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, who resigned in February 2022 after her tenure as an additional judge was not confirmed. The court overturned an earlier decision by the Bombay High Court Registrar, which had denied her pension on the grounds that resignation does not amount to retirement.
A division bench set aside the registrar’s 2022 order, directing authorities to grant Ganediwala her pension, effective from February 2022, with an interest of 6% per annum. The ruling emphasized that “retirement” is a broad term encompassing resignation, reinforcing that the mode of exit from service—whether superannuation or voluntary departure—does not affect pension eligibility.
Ganediwala, who previously served as a District Judge before her appointment as an Additional Judge in 2019, faced scrutiny over controversial judgments, including the widely criticized “skin-to-skin” ruling in a POCSO case. Her tenure was extended in 2021 but not made permanent, leading to her resignation just before the expiration of her term.
Following her resignation, she sought pension benefits for her 14 years of judicial service, only to be informed in November 2022 that she did not qualify. The court, however, found this decision inconsistent, highlighting that other former judges who had resigned were receiving pensions.
The judgment asserted that had lawmakers intended to restrict pension benefits solely to superannuation, they would have explicitly stated so in the legislation. By establishing that resignation is simply another form of retirement, the ruling paves the way for similar cases in the future.