The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that its former judge, Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala, who took voluntary retirement from service in February 2022, was entitled to pensionary benefits, as applicable to High Court judges.
The Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre passed the order on a petition filed by the former additional judge of the Bombay High Court, challenging the denial of pension to her.
Setting aside the November 2, 2022 order passed by the Nagpur Bench, the High Court today held that the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits from February 14, 2022. It further directed that the order be implemented within two months.
Justice Genadiwala had taken voluntary retirement from service in February 2022 after the Supreme Court Collegium refused to appoint her as a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court.
The Collegium took the decision on the basis of three verdicts delivered by her in cases related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice Ganediwala started her judicial career in 2007 when she was appointed as a District Judge. She was appointed as an additional judge of the High Court on February 8, 2019, for a period of two years.
On January 12, 2021, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended her appointment as a permanent judge of the High Court. The Collegium, however, withdrew the same after certain verdicts authored by the judge came to light.
The former judge had handed down three acquittals under the POCSO Act in three separate cases, all within a week.
On January 14, 2021, she reversed conviction of an accused on the grounds that there was no evidence supporting the prosecution’s case for rape (Jageshwar Wasudeo Kawle vs State of Maharashtra).
On January 15, 2021, the additional judge ruled that the act of holding hands of a minor or the zip of the pants of the accused being open at a relevant time, did not amount to sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act (Libnus vs State of Maharashtra).
On January 19, 2021, Justice Genadiwala held that the act of pressing the breast of a 12-year-old child without removing her top did not fall within the definition of ‘sexual assault’ under Section 7 of the POCSO Act (Satish Ragde vs State of Maharashtra).
Dubbed as the skin-to-skin judgment, the verdict caused a huge uproar across the country and ultimately led to the Supreme Court overturning the same.
The three verdicts prompted the Collegium to recall its recommendation regarding the appointment of Justice Ganediwala as a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court.
On February 21, 2021, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice accepted the Collegium’s revised decision not to make her a permanent judge and extended her tenure as an additional judge by one more year.
On February 10, 2022, the Judge tendered her resignation on the grounds that she was neither recommended for a permanent judgeship by the Collegium nor was her tenure as an additional judge extended.
The former judge-turned-lawyer claimed in her petition that after her resignation, she had informed the High Court officials about not receiving any pensionary benefits.
The Registrar of the High Court told her that she was not eligible or entitled to pension as a High Court judge or other applicable benefits.
The then Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni said that since Ganediwala did not retire as a High Court judge, she would not be entitled to a pension of the same rank.
Justice Ganediwala challenged the Court Registry’s communication before the High Court through a writ petition filed by Advocate Akshay Naik.
She argued that she was entitled to a pension, irrespective of whether she superannuated or took voluntary retirement from the judicial office.
Justice Ganediwala claimed that she worked as an additional judge of the High Court for close to three years but had worked as a district judge for more than 11 years.