Holding

The trichotomy and the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the 1954 Act are constitutionally valid, and the appellant is not entitled to a separate pension for his pre‑judicial I.C.S. service.

Summary

V.B. Raju, an Indian Civil Service officer who later became a High Court Judge, filed a petition seeking two separate pensions—one for his service as an I.C.S. officer and another for his tenure as a judge—under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The issues centered on the constitutional validity of the trichotomous classification of judges (ICS, other civil services, and non‑civil service), the second proviso to section 14, and clause (a) of section 15 of the 1954 Act, and whether these provisions violated Articles 14, 221 and 314 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the classification originated in the 1937 Order and was retained in the 1947 Independence Act and the 1954 Act, having constitutional sanction and a rational basis. It further ruled that the second proviso to section 14 and clause (a) of section 15 were valid and that the appellant was not entitled to a pension for his pre‑judicial service because he never actually received such a pension before his elevation. Consequently, the appeal for a double pension was dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of the trichotomous classification of High Court Judges under the 1937 Order, 1947 Act and 1954 Act vis‑à‑vis Articles 14, 221 and 314 of the Constitution.
Whether the second proviso to section 14 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 is violative of the Constitution.
Whether clause (a) of section 15 of the 1954 Act applies to a person after the Indian Civil Service ceased to exist post‑1947.
Whether the appellant is entitled to two separate pensions—one for his I.C.S. service and another for his judicial service.

Legislation cited

Subjects

pensionHigh Court JudgesIndian Civil Serviceconstitutional validitydouble pensionArticle 14Article 221Article 314statutory interpretation

Judgment

599

A

V. B. RAJU
v.
UNlON OF INDIA & OTHERS
B
September 4, 1980
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
AND A. D. KOSHAL JJ.]

High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, second pmviso to
section 14 and clause (a) of section 15 read with Part II of First Schedule, vali·
dity of-Whether an I.C.S. Officer drawn to the judicial side, continued in service
c
under section 10(2) of the Independence Act, 1947 and Article 314 of the
Constitution and later on appointed as a High Court Judge entitled to double
pension, one for the service as an I.C.S. Officer and the other for the service
as a High Court Judge.
Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court
HELD: (1) The trichotomy originating with the Government of India D
(High Court Judges) Order, 1937, continued under section 10(2) of the Independ·
ence Act, 1947 and finally adopted by the High Court Judges (Conditions et
Service) Act, 1954 does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity
and, on the other hand, has the sanction of the Constitution itself. [612 Fl
(2) The trichotomy is good not only because it was adopted by the Consti-
tution till legislation was enacted under Article 221(2) thereof, but also because E
it was necessitated by reason of High Court Judges being drawn from three
different sources, namely, Indian Civil Service, State Judicial Services and
directly from the Bar. All the -High Co~rt Judges though holding equivalent
posts are thus not similarly situated, particularly in regard to the payment of
pension and other retirement benefits. The .classification so made is a reason·
able classification based on intelligible differentia having a proper nexus to the
object to be achieved and there is thus no question of any violation of Articles F
14, 221 and 314 of the Constitution. [010 H·611 A, C; 612 F]
(3) It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the legisla-
ture does not use meaningless language and that every word used by it must
be presumed to have some meaning even though the phraseology employed may
sometimes be obscure or ambiguous. [608 F]
The expression "who is a member of thr. Indian Civil Service" appearing G
in clause (a) of section 15 of the 1954 Act cannot be just ignored as being in;
applicable to an existing situation and thus rendered otiose. What was meant
was to describe as a class High Court Judges who had earlier been members
of the Indian Civil Service so that they could he distinguished from High C"1irt
Judges who had not been such members. Although the Indian Civil Service
ceased to function as a Service of the Secretary of State for India after the
15th of August 1947 when the 1947 Act was enforced, its members were auto- H
matically appointed to corresponding posts under the Crown in connection with
the affairs of the Dominion of India or of a Province by virtue of the provi-
sions of sub-clause (1) of clause 7 of the India (Provisional Constitution) Order,
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A 1947. The Indian Civil Service was not abolished in so many words and on
the 0th.er hand, its members were given the right to continne in service on
and after the 15th August, 1947 under the same conditions of service as were
applicable to them immediately before that date as made out by sub-sections (1)
and (2) of section 10 of the 1947 Act. [608 G-609 A, C-DJ J...
All that sub-section (1) enacted was that the provisions of the Government
of India Act, 1935 ceased to operate in relation to appointments to the civil
B services of, and civil posts under, the Crown in India, by the Secretary of State
but sub-sec\ion (2) fully preserved the rights of and conditions of service appli·
cable to holde_rs of appointments already made by the Secretary of State, the -~
only difference being that in place of the Secretary of State the employers oi
the incumbents became the respective Governments concerned. [610 B-C]
(4) The second proviso to section 14 of the 1954 Act has no application to
c the appellant inasmuch as he was not in actual receipt of a pension for his
services in the Indian Civil Serviee under proviso to para 10 of Part D of Second
Schedule to the Constitution as added by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) _.-4
Act, 1956. The appellant having accepted appointment as a High Court Judge
in continuation of his service as a District Judge, he never became entitled
to pension for the period preceding his elevation to the Bench. Further he
did· not claim such a pension until the Accountant General requested him to
D indicate his ·option in accordance with the proviso to section 15 of the 1954
Act. The claim to two pensions, therefore, is inadmissjble. [El IE, H. 612 DJ

CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29-6-1970 of the Gujarat
High Court in SCA No. 46/68.
E
Appellant in person.
M. M. Abdul Khader, J. L. Jain and Miss A. Subhashini for ~
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
KosHAL. J.-This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High
Court of Gujarat under article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India
and is directed against its judgmenit dated 29th June 1970 dismissing
a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in which the appellant,
who began his career as a member of the Indian Civil and was
G ultimately appointed a High Court Judge, prayed for the issuance
of appropriate writs to ensure that he was granted two pensions
independently of each other, one in relation to his service as a High
Court Judge and the otther for the service rendered by him prior to
his appointment as such.
2. The facts leading to the petition decided by the impugned
H judgment are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. On the 6th
October 1932 the appellant was appointed by the Secretary of State
for India to the Indian Civil Service and was allotted to its Bombay
v. B. JL\1U v. UNION (Koshal, J.) 601

cadre. On the 15th August 1947, he was serving as a District Judge A
in the Province of Bombay and thereafter continued in service in
accordance with the provisions of section 10(2) of the Indian Indepen-
dence Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act) and article
314 of the Constitution. He was appointed Additional Judge of the
Bombay High Court on the 12th June 1959 and on bifurcation of the
State of Bombay on the 1st May 1960 became an Additional Judge B
of the High Court of Gujarat wherein he was made a permanent Judge
on the 5th April 1961 and continued to serve as such till 10th February
1969 on which date he submitted his resignation from and relinquished
charge of his office. I

Through a letter dated 28th May 1966 addressed to the Registrar c
of the High Court of Gujarat, the Accountant General, Gujarat
requested the appellant to exercise his option in accordance ~ith the
proviso to section 15 of the High Count Judges (Conditions of Service)
Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 1954 Act) and to intimate whether
he would receive his pension under Part I or Part II of the First
Schedule to thait Act. The stand taken by the appellant was that · D
he was not bound to exercise any option and that pension in relation
a
to his service as High Court Judge was payable to him under section
14 of the 1954 Act read with Part I of the said First Schedule. The
Government of India not having agreed with the stand taken by the
appellant, he moved the High Court as stated above and in his pe1tition
challenged the validity of the second pro¥iso to section 14 of the 1954 E
Act as also of clause (a) of section 15 thereof read with Part II of the
said First Schedule.
3. The relevant provisions of law may with advantage be noticed
here. Prior to 1947 a High Court Judge was entitled to pension in
accordance with paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the Government of India
(High Court Judges) Order, 1937 (for short the 1937 order) promulgated
by H_is Majesty in Council under the provisions of section 221 of the
Government of India Act, 1935. Those paragraphs classified High
Court Judges for purposes of pension into three categories according
as (1) they were members of the Indian Civil Service, (2) members of
services other than Indian Civil Service or (3) were not drawn from G
any of the civil services, and provided a different scale of pension for
each category.

By virtue of section 10(2) of the 1947 Act, the 1937 Order
continued to be in force right up to the commencement of the Constitu-
tion, article 221(2) of which provided, inter alia: H
"Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such
rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament
and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as are
specified in the Second Schedule."
Sub-paragraphs (1) & (4) of paragraph 10 of Part D of the Second .A.
Schedule to the Constitution provided :
"(I) There shall be paid to the Judges of the High Court
of each State specified in Part A of the First Schedule, in respect
of time spent on actual service, salary at the following rates per ~
mensem, that is to say :- ·
The Chief Justice 4,000 rupees
·C Any other Judge 3,500 rupees"
"(4) The rights in respect of leave of ·absence (including leave ...
allowances) and pension of the Judges of the High Court of any
State shall be governed by the provisions which immediately before
the commencement of this Constitution, were applicable to the
Judges -of the High Court in the corresponding Province."
D
The provisions relating to pension contained in the 1937 Order
thus continued to apply to High Court Judges till the 20th May 1954
when the 1954 Act came into force, after having been enacted by
Parliament in exercise of its legislative power under article 221(2)
of the Constitution. Section 14 of the 1954 Act then stood as follows:
E
"Subject to the provisions of thi's Act, every Judge shall, on his
retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and '>-
provisions in Part I of the First Schedule :
"Provided that no such pension shall be payable to a Judge
unless-
F (a) he has completed not less than twelve years of service
for pension; or
(b) he has attained the age of sixty-two years, and in
the case of a Jludge holding office on the 5th day of October,
1963, sixty years; or
G (c) his retirement is medically certified to be necessitated
by ill-health."
'-i-·
The following proviso was added to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph
10 of Part D of the Sec.ond Schedule to the Constitution by the Constitu-
tion (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act, for brevity) with
H effect from the 1st November, 1956:
"Provided that if a Judge of a High Court at the time of
his appointment is in receipt of a pension (other than a disability
v. B. RAJU v. UNION (Koshal, J.) 603

(Jr wound pension) in respect of any previous service under the A
Government of India or any of its predecessor Governments or
,under the Government of a State or any of its predecessor Govern-
ments, his salary in respect of service in the High Court shall be
reduced-
(a) by the amount of that pension, and
B
(b) if he has, before such appointment, received in lieu
of a portion of the pension due to him in respect of such

~
previous service the commuted value thereof, by the amount
of that portion of 1he pension, and
..
(c) if he has, before such appointment, received a retire-
ment gratuity in respect of such previous service, by the
c
pension equivalent of tha( gratuity."
;..
The 1956 Act also deleted sub-paragraph (4) above ex:tracted.
A second proviso was added to section 14 of the 1954 Act by
section 6 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Amendment
D
Act, 1958 (for short the 1958 Act) with effect from the 1st November,
1956 and stated :
"Provided further that if a Judge at the time of his
appointment is in receipt of a pension (other than a disability
or wound pension) in respect of any previous service in the
Union or a State, the pension payable under this Act shall be E
in lieu of, and not in addition to, that pension."
......_
Section 15 of and the relevant portions of Parts I, II and III of
the First Schedule to the 1954 Act as amended by the 1958 Act with
-~ effect from the 1st November, 1956, may also be set out in extenso:
"15. Every Judge- F
"
(a) who is a member of the Indian Civil Service shall,
on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the
scale and provisions in Part l] of the First Schedule;
(b) who is not a member of the Indian Civil Service
G
but has held any other pensionable Civil Post under the Union
or a State, shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in
accordance with the scale and provisions in Part III of the
First Schedule :
"Provided that every such Judge shall elect to receive the
pension payable to him either under Part I of the Firs~ Schedule H
or, as the case may be, Part II or Part III of the First Schedule,
and the pension payable to him shall be calculated accordingly."
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A "THE FIRST SCHEDULE
•
"PENSION OF JUDGES
"PART I

"1. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who is not
B a member of the Indian Civil Service or has not held any other
pensionable civil post under the Union or a State and also apply
to a Judge who, being a member of the Indian Civil Service or ~
having held any other pensionable civil post under the Union or
;;~ate, has elected to receive the pension payable under this __ _

c
"2. Subjeot to the other provisions of this Part, the pension
payable to a Judge to whom this Part applies and who has com-
pleted not less than seven years of service for pension shall be
the basic pension specified in paragraph 3 increased by the addi-
tional pension, if any, to which he is entitled under paragraph 5.
D
"3. The basic pension to which such a Judge shall be
entitled shall be-
(a) for the first seven completed years of service for
pension, Rs. 5000 per annum; and
E (b) for each subsequent completed year of service for
pension, a further sum of Rs. 1,000 per annum :
"Provided that the basic pension shall in no case exceed ';>-
Rs. 10,000 per annum.

"4. For the purpose of calculating additional pensions, _ ("'
F service as a Judge shall be classified as follows: 7
"Grade I. Service as Chief Justice in any High Court;
"Grade II. Service as any other Judge in any High Court.

"5. For each completed year of service for pension in either
G of the grades mentioned in paragraph 4, the Judge who is eligible
for a basic pension under this Part shall be entitled to the addi-
tional pension specified in relation to that grade in the second --.+·
column of the table annexed hereto :
"Provided th~t the aggregate amount of his basic and addi-
H tional pension shall not exceed the amount specified in the third
column of the said table in relation to the higher grade in which
he has render<:d service for not less than one completed year.
v. B. RAJU v. UNION (Koshal, J.) 605

"TABLE
"Service Additional pension Maximum aggregate
per annum pension per annum.
Rs. • Rs.
"Grade I. 740 20,000 B

"Grade II. 470 16,000"

~ ..
"PART II
c
"1. The provisions of this Part apply <to a Judge who is a
member of the Indian Civil Service and who has not elected to
receive the pension payable under ~art I.

"2. The pension payable to such aJudge shall be - D
· (a) the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary
rules of the Indian Civil Service if he had not been appointed
a Judge, his service as a Judge being treated as service therein
for the purpose of calculatillg that pension; and

(b) the additional pension, if any, to which he is entitled E
under paragraph 3.

"3. If such a Judge has completed not less than seven years
of service for pension in a High Court, he shall be entitled to
an additional pension in accordance with the following scale :
F
Per annum
Rs.
"For seven completed years of service for pension 1,333
For eight completed years of service for pension 1,600 G

For nine completed years of service for pension 1,866
+·
For ten completed years of service for pension 2,133
For eleven completed years of service for pension 2,400
H
For twelve or more completed years of service.
for pension. 2,666"
l:l-647 S. C. India/SO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

"PART; ill

"1. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who has
held any civil pensionable post under the Union or a State (but
is not a member of the Indian Civil Service) and who has not J.._
elected to receive the pension payable under Part I.
B "2. 'The pension payable to such a Judge shall be-
(a) The pension 1o which he is entitled under the
ordinary rules of his service if he had not been appointed a .. ~
Judge, his service as a Judge being treated as service therein
for the purpose of calculating that pension; and __
c (b) a special additional pension of Rs. 500 per ann~m
in respect of each completed year of service for pension but
in no case such additional pension together with the additional ~
or special pension, if any, to which he is entitled under the
ordinary rules of his service, shall exceed Rs. 2500 per
annum."
D
4. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant before the ·
High Court were :
A. The second proviso to section 14 of the 1954 Aot is violative
of artioles 221, 314 and 14 of the Constitution and is, therefore,
void. The appellant is accordingly entitled to elect for
E
pension under Part l of the First Schedule to that Act without
being required to forego the benefit of the pension earned
by him prior to his elevation to the Bench.
B. Clause (a) of section 15 of the 1954 Act is applicable only to
a Judge who is a member of the Indian Civil Service. That
F Service, however, came to an end on the 15th of August,
1947 whereafter there was no Judge who could be said to be
a member of that Service. The clause has, therefore, no I
application to any situation prevailing after the said date.

G
C. Clause (a) of section 15 of the 1954 Act read with Part II of
the First Schedule thereto is violative of article 14 of the
Constitution so that in case the second proviso to section 14
of the 1954 Act is held to be good, the apJiellant would be
1

entitled to pension tinder clause (b) of section 15 of that Act
" '-..._

read with Part ill of the said Schedule.
5. In regard to contention A the High C.Cmrt held that the
H appellant having accepted appointment as a High Court Judge in
Continuation of his service as a District Judge, he never became
entitled to pension for the period preceding his elevation to the BenFh
v. B. RAJU v. UNION (Koshal, J.) 607

'SO that the second proviso to section 14 of the 1954 Act never became A
applicable to him and the validity or otherwise of that proviso was
<irrelevant for the determination of his claim.

Contention B was negatived by the High Court o.µ the ground
that the expression "who is a member of the Indian Civil Service"
appearing in clause (a) of section 15 of the 1954 Act had to be given B
-some meaning in spite of the fact that the Indian Civil Service had

~..
<eea~ed to be alive as such after August 15, 1947 and that the only
Teasonable way Of interpreting the expression was to hold that it meant
a person who had been a member of the Indian Civil Service imme-
diately before August 15, 1947.
c
The conclusions arrived at by the High Court as a result of the
consideration it gave to ground C may be summarised thus :
(a) Under the Civil Service Regulations read with the 1937 Order
a member of the Indian Civil Service who was promoted from
the post of .a District Judge to that of a High Court Judge D
was not entitled to pension for the period prior to his elevation
to the Bench. His right_to pension accrued only when he
relinquished the office of High Court Jludge. This position
continued to obtain till the enforcement of the Constitution
'by reason of ·section 10(2) of the 1947 ·Act al1d after such
enforcement by reason of the provisions of the Constitution, E
namely, articles 314 and 221(2) read with sub-paragraph (4)
of paragraph 10 of Part D of the Second Schedule as that
sub-paragraph stood prior 'lo its deletion by the 1956 Act.
Thus the Constitution iitself through its provisions just above
mentioned provided that High Court Judges who had earlier
been members of the Indian Civil Service would get pension F
according to the formula contained in the 1937 Order. which
was a formula different from the one applicable to High Court
Judges who had not been members of any of the civil
services.
1(b) The 1954 Act preserved the trichotomy envisaged by the G
1937 Qrder but made an additional provision that if a High
Court Judge who had earlier been a member oil the Indian
Civil Service felt that it would be more beneficial to him to
receive pension on the basis of the provisions set out in section
14 of the 1954 Act read with Part Ji of the First Schedule
thereto he could elect to do so. This additional provision ·H
was obviously introduced for the benefit of the erstwhile
members of that Service.
GOS . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981} 1 S.C.R.

A (c) The Constitution itself put its seal on the trichotomy above
detailed through· articles 314 and 221(2) read with paragraph
10 of Part D of the Second Schedule and the differentiation
made by the Constitution itself cannot be attacked as discri·
minatory when it was adopted by Parliament in the 19.54 Act. ,
(d) The basis of calculating pension in clause (a) of section 15.
of the Act read w1th Part U of the First Schedule thereto .
on the one hand and clause (b) of section 15 of that Aot read. ~j
with Part III of the said Schedule on the other, is continuity
of service. Service rendered by a person as High Court Judge
is tagged on with any earlier service for the purpose of .
c computation of basic .pension; for, otherwise High Court
Judges who had earlier been members of civil services would
be deprived of 'the pensionary benefit in respect of their , ~
service rendered as such members. This was the reason for
the trichotomy which was adopted not only by the 1937 Order
but also by the 1947 Act and later on by the Constitution
D as well as the 1954 Act for the benefit of such Judges. The
differentiation is not only not irrational but is eminently
desirable and is based on rational criteria.

6. It was in the above premises that the High Court did not
find any substance in the petition dismissed by the impugned order.
E 1. All the contentions raised before the High Court have been
reiterated before us but after hearmg the appellant in person at length
we see no reason at all to differ from the conclusions reached by the
High Court.

F
8. We may first take up contention B which need not detain us
long. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the f
legislature does not use meaningless language and that every word
used by it must be presumed to have some meaning even though the
phraseology employed may some-times be obscure or ambiguous. The
expression "who is a member of the Indian Civil Service" appearing in
clause {a) of section 15 of the 1954 Aot cannot be just ignored as
G .being inapplicable to an existing situation and thus rendered otiose.
As pointed out .by the High Court what was meant was to describe
as a class High Court Judges who had earlier been members of the
Indian Civil Service so that they could be distinguished from High _
Court Judges who had not been such members. In this connection
it is noteworthy that although the Indian Civil Service ceased to
H function as a Service of the Secretary of State for India after the 15th
of August 1947 when the 1947 Act was enforced, its members were ·
automatically appointed to corresponding posts under the Crown in
·v. B. RAJU v. UNION (Koshal, ].) ·609
I
connection with the affairs of ·the Dominion of India or of a Province A
bY' ·virtue of the provisions of sub-clause (l) of clause 7 of the India
(Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947. That sub-clause runs thus:
I

"7. (1) Subject to any general or special orders or arrange-
ments affecting his case, any person who immediately before the
appointed day is holding any · civil post under the Crown in B
connection with the affairs of the Governor-General or Governor-
General in Council or of a Province other than Bengal or the
Punjab shall, as from that day, be deemed to have been duly

--·· •'
appointed to the corresponding post under the Crown in connection
with the affairs of the Dominion of India or, as the case may be,
of the Province."
!he Indian Civil Service was not abolished in so many words and,
I
on the other hand, its members were given the right to continue in
c

service on and after the 15th August, 1947 under the same conditions
of service as were applicable to them immedia!tely before that date.
This is clearly made out by sub-sections ( l) and (2) of section 10 of D
the 1947 Act which are reproduced below:
"(1) The provisions of this Act keeping in force provisions
of the Government of India Act, 1935, shall not continue in force
the provisio!js of that Act relating to appointments to the civil
servi_ces of, and civil posts under, the Crown in India by the
Secr~tary of State, or the provisions of that Act relating to the
rese,rvation of posts.

"(2) Every pers<?n who-
--~ (a) having been appointed by. the Secretary of State in
Council, to a civil service of the Crown in India continues
on and after the appointed day_ to serve under the Government F
of either of the new Dominions or of any Province or part
thereof; or
(b) having been appointed by His Majesty before the
appointed day to be a Judge of the Federal Court or of any
Court which is a High Court within the meaning of the G
Government of India Act, 1935, continues on and after the
appointed day . to serve as a Jiudge in either of the new
Dominions:
shall be entitled to receive from the Government of the Dominions
and Provinces or parts which he is from time to time serving or,
as the case may be, which are served by the courts in which H
he is from time to time a Judge, the same condi·tions of service
r: as respects remuneration, leave and pension, and the same right$
610 SUPREME OOURT RE'PORTS U981] 1 s.C~R.

A. as respects disciplinary matters or, as the case may be, as respect$
the tenure of his office, or rights ~ similar thereto as changed
circumstances may permit, as that person was entitled to
immediately before the appointed day."

All that sub-section (1) enacted was that the provisions of the
B Government of India Act, 1935 ceased to operate in relation to appoint.
ments to the civil services of, and civil posts under, the Crown in
India. by the Secretary of State but sub-section (2) fully preserved
the rights of and conditions of service applicable to holders of
appointments already made by the Secretary of State, the only
difference being that in place of the Secretary of State the employers
c of the incumbents became the respective Governments concerned. In
this situation it would not be correct to say that the expression "who
is a member of the Indian Civil Service" would be meaningless and
wholly inapplicable to any existing situation after the 15th Augus~
1947; and when an Act of Parliament uses that ex,pression surely it
must be given the meaning that the High Court says it has, i.e., that
D it denotes persons who were members of the Indian Civil Service
prior to the enforcement of the 1947 Act and were elevated to the
Bench thereafter.
9. The other contentions raised by the appellant ignore one basic
reason which provides justification for the trichotomy operating right
1

E from the enforcement of the 1937 Order. He does not (and of course
cannot) challenge that trichotomy for the period prior to the commence·
ment of the Constitution because his objection to it is based on
discrimination violative of article 14 thereof. - But then he has failed
to realise what the Constitution itself enacted in paragraph 10 of its
Second Schedule both before and after its amendment by the 1956
F Act. Prior to the 1st November 1956 (which is the date on which the
1956 Act came into 'force)- sub-paragr~ph (4) of the said paragraph
10 provided for pension of Judges of the High Court of any State being
governed by the provisions which were applicable to such Judges
before the commencement of the Constrtution. Those provisions were,
as pointed out above, contained in the 1937 Order which initiated the
G trichotomy. The High Court was thus right in holding tha!t the
Constitution itself adopted that trichotomy.
Then came the 1954 Act which was brought on the statute book
by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under article 221(2)
of the Constitution. The trichotomy introduced by the 1937 Order
H was repeated in the 1954 Act, till when it had been kept alive by
sub-paragraph (4) above mentioned. And that trichotomy is good
not only because it was adopted by the Constitution till legislation
v. B. RAJU v. UNION (Koshal, J.)

was enacted under article 221(2) thereof but also because it was
necessitated by reason of High Court Judges being drawn from three
different sources.
In so far as persons who had been members of the Indian Civil
Service or of a State Judicial Service before being appointed as High
Court Judges are concerned, the period of service put in by them in B
such Service has to be taken into account. On the other hand, High
Court Judges recruited directly from the Bar do not have any prior
service to their credit. All the High Court Judges, though holding
equivalent posts, are thus not similarly situated, particularly in regard
to the payment of pension and other retirement benefits. That is why
different provisions were considered necessary iitJ. the case of each of C
the three categories in regard to payment of pension. The classification
so made is a reasonable classification based .on intelligible differentia
having a proper nexus to the object to be achieved.
The matter may be viewed from another angle. According to the
proviso added to sub-paragraph (1) of the said paragraph IO by the D
1956 Act (which proviso we have set out above), the salary of a High
Court Judge who "is in receipt of a pension ............... : .... .in respect
of any previous service under the Government of India or any of its
predecessor Governments or under the Government of a State or any
of its predecessor Governments, ............................................... .
.. .. . . .. .. .. .. . shall be reduced by the amount of that pension............. " E
That proviso would have fully applied to the case of the appellant if
~e had actually been in receipt of a pension prior to his elevation to
the Bench. That he was not in receipt of any such pension is, however,
admitted on all hands and, therefore, as held by the High Court, the
. second proviso to section 14 of the 1954 Act has no application _to
him: But then his argument is that he should be deemed to have F
been in receipt of a pension according to his entitlement immediately
before he took oath as a High Court Judge. Even if we assume this
argument to be correct, his case would not irµprove in any manner;
for, then his salary as a High Court Judge would automatically come
down to less than Rs. 3500 which is the salary payable to Judges who
have not been members of any of the civil services earlier, and the G
difference would not be merely marginal. It is the case of the appellant
that if he had retired from the Indian Civil Service immediately priotr
to the 12th June 1959 when he was elevated to the Bench he would
have been entitled to receive a pension of Rs. 13350 per annum or
about Rs, 1111 per mensem. On his elevation to the Bench he would
in that case be entitled to a salary of less than Rs. 2400 as compared H
to Rs. 3500 payable to other High Court Judges who had not belonged
to any civil services earlier. This difference in salary being substantial
'.612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

is itself a good reason for treating the appellant and other High Court
Judges similarly situated in a manner different from Hig,h "C-Ourt Judges
not so situated and the same reasoning would apply to High Court ,.(
Judges who had earlier been members of civil services other than
the Indian Civil Service. It is of course not the case of the appellant
that the proviso to sub'.paragraph (1) of paragraph 10 above mentioned·
B is itself not enforceable for one reason or the other; and if that be
so, the trichotomy of which he complains becomes fully justifiable..

10. We may make it clear, however, that the appellant's plea
that he must _be held entitled to a separate pension for his service
immediately preceding his elevation to the Bench cannot be accep:ted
c as correct in the face of the firiding by the High Court that he was
entitled to pension only after his retirement and, therefore, after his
service as a High Court Judge came to an end, and that too according
to the 1937 Order. The appellant has failed to show how that fmdhi.g
is erroneous. In this connection it may be stated that it was only
after the Accountant General had requested him to indicate his option
D in accordance with the proviso to section 15 of the 1954 Act that he
claimed two pensions, one in respect of the period prior to his elevation
to the Bench and one for that for which he was a High Court Judge.
· At. no time prior to that had he claimed any pension for his service
as a member of the Indian Civil Service or any of the other. civil
services.
E
11. The trichotomy originating with the 1937 Order and finally
adopted by the 1954 Act having been found by us not to suffer from
any legal or constitutional infirmity and, on the other hand, to have
the sanction of the Constitution itself, none of the three articles thereof,
namely, 14, 221 & 314 on which the appellant banks, comes to his
F rescue. His claim is accordingly held to be without force and the
appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.
S.R.

. '