V. B. RAJU versus UNLON OF INDIA & OTHERS

V. B. RAJU versus UNLON OF INDIA & OTHERS

The classification (trichotomy) in pension entitlement for High Court Judges under the 1954 Act, based on their source of entry (ICS, State Judicial Services, or directly from Bar), is reasonable, has constitutional sanction, and does not violate Articles 14, 221, or 314. Appellant not entitled to double pension as he was not in receipt of a pension for service prior to elevation to the Bench.

Parties
Appellant: V. B. Raju; Respondents: Union of India & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 September 1980
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From Gujarat High Court Judgment Dated 29 6 1970 in SCA No. 46/68
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pension of High Court Judges, Validity of Classification for Pension, Interpretation of Statutes
Constitutional Law Service Law Pension of High Court Judges Validity of Classification for Pension Interpretation of Statutes

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V. B. Raju

Appellant

Union of India & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From Gujarat High Court Judgment Dated 29 6 1970 in SCA No. 46/68

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Indian Civil Service officer appointed as a High Court Judge is entitled to two pensions: one for ICS service and another for High Court Judge service
  2. 2 Validity of trichotomy/classification in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, section 14 proviso and section 15 clause (a) read with First Schedule
  3. 3 Whether Articles 14, 221, and 314 of the Constitution are violated by the classification

Ratio Decidendi

The classification (trichotomy) in pension entitlement for High Court Judges under the 1954 Act, based on their source of entry (ICS, State Judicial Services, or directly from Bar), is reasonable, has constitutional sanction, and does not violate Articles 14, 221, or 314. Appellant not entitled to double pension as he was not in receipt of a pension for service prior to elevation to the Bench.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs