Case at a Glance
The petitioner was elevated as a Judge of the Orissa High Court on 7 October 2009, was transferred to the Calcutta High Court in 2022 and retired from there on 20 May 2024. Odisha allowed him medical facilities as a former Judge of his parent High Court but did not sanction the domestic help, driver, secretarial, security and telephone allowances under its notification of 24 April 2025. A Division Bench held that his claim cannot be rejected merely because he retired from the Calcutta High Court, set aside the State’s order to that extent and directed release of the allowances, subject to verification that he is not drawing similar benefits elsewhere, with arrears within eight weeks.
The petitioner served as a Judge of the Orissa High Court from 7 October 2009. By a notification dated 1 June 2022 he was transferred to the Calcutta High Court, where he assumed office on 20 June 2022, and he retired on superannuation from that Court on 20 May 2024. He elected to take his post-retirement benefits from his parent High Court in Odisha.
The Home Department’s notification of 24 April 2025 provides retired Chief Justices and Judges of the Orissa High Court ₹45,000 a month for domestic help and driver expenses and ₹15,000 a month for telephone, internet, secretarial and security services, with a 5% annual increase, “if he/she is not availing such or similar facility from any other High Court.” By Order No. 32393 dated 31 July 2025, the State allowed him medical facilities from the parent High Court but did not sanction these allowances. The State argued that the scheme was meant for those who retired from the Orissa High Court, and that the Supreme Court’s clarification of 15 April 2025 concerned only medical reimbursement.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a Judge first appointed to the Orissa High Court, who later retired from another High Court on transfer, claim the post-retirement domestic help, driver, secretarial, security and telephone allowances that Odisha gives its retired Judges?
Why the Court Read the Scheme in Favour of the Transferred Judge
The Court traced the Supreme Court’s line of orders on post-retirement benefits for High Court Judges, including P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India, (2014) 03 SC CK 0100 and the orders passed in Justice V.S. Dave, President, Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors., along with the Orissa High Court’s own decision in Orissa High Court Retired Judges’ Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.. It found that the Supreme Court’s directions treat domestic help and telephone allowances as a distinct category of benefit, and that the 15 April 2025 clarification recognises either the State of first appointment or the State of retirement as the concerned State. That principle, it held, is not confined to the place of retirement.
Reading the 2025 notification, the Bench held that its condition (that the Judge is not availing a similar facility from another High Court) is aimed at preventing double benefits, not at excluding transferred Judges. A transfer is an incident of judicial service and does not wipe out the years served in the parent High Court; excluding such a Judge would need a clear provision, which the scheme does not contain. The petitioner was not asking for any new allowance or rate, since the State had already fixed the amounts, and the absence of an earlier instance of such a grant did not decide entitlement. In the Court’s words, “the Petitioner’s claim cannot be rejected on the sole ground that he retired from the Calcutta High Court.”
What the Court Actually Held
- A transferred Judge’s claim to Odisha’s post-retirement allowances cannot be rejected only because he retired from the Calcutta High Court.
- The non-availment condition in the 24 April 2025 notification is meant to prevent duplication and can be satisfied by verification; it does not bar a transferred Judge.
- Order No. 32393 dated 31 July 2025 was set aside to the extent it failed to consider the claim for domestic help, driver, secretarial, security and telephone allowances.
- The State must extend these benefits at prevailing rates, subject to verification that he is not availing the same or similar facilities elsewhere, and release arrears, if any, within eight weeks; no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- High Court Judges are regularly transferred between States. The ruling clarifies that the parent State cannot deny retirement benefits simply because the Judge retired elsewhere.
- It reads a welfare notification by its purpose (avoiding double benefits) rather than by a narrow reading of who ‘retired from’ the Court.
- The reasoning on transfer as an incident of service may also help other transferred public servants whose benefits are tied to their parent cadre.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Retired Officers
- Where a scheme bars only duplication, a transfer before retirement should not by itself defeat a claim.
- Be ready to give an undertaking or proof that you are not drawing a similar benefit from another State.
- A partial grant (for example, medical facilities only) can be challenged to the extent the rest of the claim was not considered.
For Counsel
- Rely on the Supreme Court’s orders in the Justice V.S. Dave contempt proceedings and the 15 April 2025 clarification on the ‘concerned State’.
- Frame the relief as enforcement of an existing notification at prescribed rates, not creation of a new benefit.
- Point out the purpose of eligibility conditions; courts will not read in an exclusion the scheme does not state.
Key Takeaways
- The petitioner served in the Orissa High Court from 2009 and retired from the Calcutta High Court in 2024 after transfer.
- The 2025 notification’s condition was read as an anti-duplication clause, not a bar on transferred Judges.
- The State’s refusal of the allowances was set aside and benefits were ordered at prevailing rates after verification.
- Arrears, if any, are payable within eight weeks of receipt of the judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a High Court Judge transferred to another State claim retirement benefits from the parent State?
In this case, yes. The Orissa High Court held that the petitioner’s claim to Odisha’s domestic help, driver, secretarial, security and telephone allowances could not be rejected only because he retired from the Calcutta High Court.
What allowances did the Odisha notification provide?
The notification of 24 April 2025 provides ₹45,000 a month for domestic help and driver expenses and ₹15,000 a month for telephone, internet, secretarial and security services, with a 5% annual increase, subject to the Judge not availing such or similar facility from another High Court.
Is there any safeguard against double benefits?
Yes. The Court directed that the benefits be extended subject to verification that the petitioner is not availing the same or similar facilities elsewhere.
Conclusion
The judgment treats a transfer as part of a Judge’s service rather than a break from it. Because the Odisha scheme only guards against double benefits, the Court found no reason to shut out a Judge who spent most of his tenure in the State’s High Court and retired elsewhere.
Practical takeaway: When a benefit scheme sets a condition, read it in light of its purpose; if the condition is about avoiding duplication, the remedy is verification, not denial.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com