Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Deduction Of Retired Judge's Pension From His Salary As Tribunal Chairman
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of pension deduction from the salary of a retired judge who was appointed as a tribunal chairman.
The court directed the State to pay arrears along with 9% interest to Justice (retd.) V.K. Sharma, former judge of the High Court, who was later appointed as Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
The Court held that the deduction of pension from the salary of a retired HC judge subsequently appointed as chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (HPAT) is impermissible under law.
Justice Sandeep Sharma said: “Pension is not a bounty or a matter of grace but a vested right earned for the past service rendered. It is social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hay days of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.”
The petitioner, Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma, a former Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, was appointed as Chairman of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in December 2014, by the President of India under Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 at a fixed pay of ₹80,000.
However, the department of personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh, deducted Rs.40,000 from his salary on account of pension, stating that pay of the petitioner has been rightly fixed after following the general principle of 'pay minus pension' in case of reemployed pensioners. The deduction continued even after the 2018 pay revision, when the salary was increased to Rs.2,25,000.
The Court rejected the contention of State, holding that according to Section 8(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act conditions of service of Chairman and Members of the Administrative Tribunal shall be the same as applicable to Judges of the High Court.
The Court stated that deduction of the salary amounted to violation of constitutional safeguard under Article 221(2) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits variation of a judge's pension or allowances to their disadvantage after appointment.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and it was held that the appointment was not a reemployment and was a fresh constitutional employment.
Case Name: Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Another
Case No.: CWP No.3193 of 2019
Date of Decision: 23.07.2025
For the Petitioner: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. V.B. Verma, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.2