PUSHPA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the communication dtd. 2/11/2022 issued by the Registrar (Original Side), High Court, Bombay, by which the petitioner, who was a former Judge of this Court, has been informed that she is not eligible for pension. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents to fix and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 14/2/2022 along with interest.

(3.) Facts giving rise to this petition, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was a practicing advocate. The petitioner, on 26/10/2007 was appointed as a District Judge. The collegium of the Supreme Court on 16/1/2019 recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as a Judge of Bombay High Court. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, a Notification dtd. 8/2/2019 was issued under Article 224(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court for a period of two years with effect from the date she assumed charge. The petitioner assumed charge as an Additional Judge of the High Court, Bombay on 13/2/2019. The Central Government issued a Notification dtd. 12/2/2021 under Article 224(1) of the Constitution of India by which the tenure of the petitioner as Additional Judge of Bombay High Court was extended w.e.f. 13/2/2021 for a period of one year. The tenure of the petitioner as Additional Judge was to expire on 12/2/2022. The petitioner tendered resignation on 11/2/2022. The Central Government, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, by Notification dtd. 14/3/2023 notified the resignation of the petitioner.