Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, July 24,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the deduction of pension from the salary of a retired High Court judge subsequently appointed as Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (HPAT) is impermissible under law. The decision came in a writ petition filed by Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma, former Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, challenging the state’s repeated deduction of his pension from the fixed salary he was entitled to draw as HPAT Chairman.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma, who termed the state government’s deductions “unsustainable in law” and emphasized that a High Court Judge appointed as Chairman of a Tribunal does not hold the post in re-employment.
“Appointment of the petitioner to the post of Chairman after his retirement as High Court Judge cannot be termed as reemployment,” observed Justice Sharma, relying on a series of Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India v. K.B. Khare and All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India.
The petitioner was appointed as Chairman of HPAT by the President of India on December 29, 2014, with a fixed salary of ₹80,000. However, despite clear terms, the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh, issued multiple orders reducing his fixed pay by deducting his pension of ₹4.8 lakhs annually received as a retired Judge.
Justice Sharma noted that the deduction violated Section 10 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which explicitly bars altering salary and service conditions of Tribunal members to their disadvantage post-appointment.
“Since in the case at hand, His Excellency, the President of India, while appointing the petitioner as Chairman of HPAT, had fixed his salary at ₹80,000 (fixed), the same could not have been varied/reduced to his disadvantage after his appointment,” he ruled.
Further strengthening the petitioner’s case, the court referenced a 2014 communication from the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T), Government of India, which stated that service conditions of HPAT’s Chairman must be governed by the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and not by the repealed Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1986.
The court also quoted the Supreme Court’s view in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, where it was held that Administrative Tribunals are judicial bodies and their members, particularly retired High Court judges, cannot be treated as re-employed civil servants.
“Judges are not employees—they are holders of public offices in the same way as Members of the Legislature or Ministers,” the judgment reiterated.
In granting the petition, the court quashed all departmental orders from 2015 to 2019 that had fixed the Chairman’s salary “minus pension” and directed the state to comply with the original appointment order, treating the pay as fixed and undeducted.
This judgment not only reinstates the financial entitlement of a retired judge but also underscores the constitutional status and protections accorded to judicial officers, even after their tenure on the bench ends.
The matter was argued by Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, appearing for Justice (Retd.) V.K. Sharma, while the State was represented by Advocate General Anup Rattan, and the Union of India by V.B. Verma, Central Government Standing Counsel.
Justice Sharma concluded by reaffirming that “judicial independence must be secured both in substance and practice,” echoing the broader constitutional principles that guided the decision.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
