Rajasthan HC denies separate pension to former human rights commission chief

The bench upheld the state government’s decision to deny him a separate pension, stating that the rules did not create a right to a “dual pension” for successive constitutional posts

The Rajasthan High Court on Saturday dismissed the petition of Justice Prakash Tatia, a former Chief Justice and ex-Chairperson of the State Human Rights Commission, who sought pensionary benefits for his tenure at the Commission, arguing it was at par with that of a High Court Chief Justice.

The court concluded that accepting the petitioner’s argument would lead to a “fiscally imprudent outcome”. (Official photo)

A division bench comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Anuroop Singhi upheld the state government’s decision to deny him a separate pension, stating that the rules did not create a right to a “dual pension” for successive constitutional posts.

Justice Tatia, who retired as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, was already drawing a maximum pension of ₹1.25 lakh per month for that service.

The court meticulously analysed the amended Rule 4 of the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission Rules, 2002, which states that the salary, allowances, and pension of the Chairperson shall be the same as those of the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

Justice Tatia’s counsel argued that this entitled him to an independent pension for his nearly four-year term as Chairperson from 2015 to 2019, regardless of his existing pension.

However, the bench interpreted the rule differently, emphasizing that its purpose was to ensure parity in the quantum of benefits, not to authorize multiple pension streams. The court placed heavy reliance on the second proviso to Rule 4, which allows for the deduction of a pre-existing pension from the salary of the Chairperson, seeing it as a clear legislative intent to prevent “double-dipping.”

In its observation, the court said, “Pension, in its truest conception, is not a gratuitous dole extended at the pleasure of the State but a deferred portion of the compensation earned by an employee... The legislative silence in Rule 4 on the aspect of dual pensions must therefore be read not as inadvertence, but as fidelity to the wider legislative policy.”

The court concluded that accepting the petitioner’s argument would lead to a “fiscally imprudent outcome” and be contrary to the statutory framework governing pensions for other high constitutional offices like High Court Judges, who are expressly barred from receiving dual pensions.