E-Paper
SC calls on states to ensure dignified pay for retired judges appointed to tribunals
The Supreme Court insists states must ensure fair salaries for retired judges heading tribunals, emphasizing the dignity of their former roles.
The Supreme Court on Friday emphasised that states must offer appropriate salaries and perks to retired high court judges who are appointed to head tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, underlining the importance of maintaining the dignity of these former judges.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud urged state governments to frame terms of their appointments in a manner that reflects the stature and constitutional positions they once held or amend the related legislation so that the judges could be replaced by people from other fields.
The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was emphatic that the value of retired judges could not be assessed purely based on the volume of work they handle in these bodies, stating that the dignity and status attached to their office must be preserved, regardless of the number of cases they oversee.
“The issue is not whether they handle 500 or 5,000 cases. The dignity of their office is paramount. There is a certain imprimatur they carry for being retired judges of high courts. It’s not about the workload but about the dignity and respect for their position. If states have such an attitude, they should not appoint retired judges,” remarked the bench.
The Supreme Court’s observations came while rejecting an appeal by the state of Haryana against a December 2023 ruling by the Punjab & Haryana high court. The high court had directed the Haryana government to treat a retired high court judge, justice SD Anand, at par with the chairpersons of the Haryana Tax Tribunal and Haryana Backward Classes Commission and pay him his dues accordingly. Justice Anand, who was appointed as president of the appellate authority of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) in April 2017, had waited 22 months for the state to finalise the terms of his appointment, forcing him to seek legal recourse.
In February 2022, a single-judge bench of the high court pulled up the state for its inaction, directing that justice Anand be paid dues in line with similar positions. The state’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by a division bench in December 2023, reinforcing the need for parity in pay and perks for retired judges in such posts.
In its ruling, the division bench noted that the post of president of the appellate authority was a statutory position, and that retired high court judges appointed to such posts must receive the same salary and perks as sitting judges. The state’s appeal was dismissed, with the court stating that there was no ground to interfere with the previous decision, which it described as “well-reasoned”.
While dismissing the Haryana’s appeal, the court took note that the state has subsequently notified the terms and conditions of the post in question, and therefore, clarified that the order in favour of justice Anand would not be a binding precedent.
India’s legal system has long recognised the need for judicial expertise in tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, with several laws explicitly requiring the appointment of serving or retired judges from the High Courts or the Supreme Court. This approach is intended to bring judicial rigor, independence, and impartiality to specialised bodies handling sensitive matters.
One prominent example is the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which was established under the NGT Act, 2010. The Act mandates that the chairperson must be a former judge of the Supreme Court or a chief justice of a high court. Similarly, the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), National Companies Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and Armed Forces Tribunal require the chairperson to be a former judge of the Supreme Court or the chief justice of a high court.
The legislative mandates are seemingly designed not only to lend credibility to these tribunals but also to ensure that their decisions are in line with established principles of justice and the Constitution. The presence of retired judges also serves to maintain public confidence in the fairness and integrity of these bodies.
