UNION OF INDIA versus BIDHUBHUSHAN MALIK AND OTHERS

UNION OF INDIA versus BIDHUBHUSHAN MALIK AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Allahabad High Court, holding that the pension entitlement under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) cannot be restricted by the retiree’s date of retirement, and that the relevant provision is unconstitutional. Liberalised pension operates from October 1, 1984, but no arrears apply for period before that date.

Parties
Petitioner: Union of India; Respondents: Bidhubhushan Malik and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 1984
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Dismissal at Supreme Court
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Pension Entitlement of High Court Judges, Validity of Amended Pension Provision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India

Petitioner

Bidhubhushan Malik and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Dismissal at Supreme Court

  1. 1 Validity of the words 'and who has retired on or after the 1st day of October, 1984' in para 10 of First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended)
  2. 2 Entitlement of Judges (including Chief Justices) to pension irrespective of date of retirement

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Allahabad High Court, holding that the pension entitlement under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) cannot be restricted by the retiree’s date of retirement, and that the relevant provision is unconstitutional. Liberalised pension operates from October 1, 1984, but no arrears apply for period before that date.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special leave petition dismissed
  • Allahabad High Court judgment in W.P. No. 3281 of 1979 upheld