Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala Filed A Petition Before The Nagpur HC Claiming She Has Not Received Her Pension After Voluntary Retirement

Former Bombay High Court Judge Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala, known for her controversial "skin-to-skin" judgments in January 2021, has filed a petition before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. She claims that she has not been receiving her pension after voluntarily retiring from her judicial service. 

Justice Ganediwala, who took voluntary retirement after serving as an additional judge of the High Court in February 2022, approached the High Court officials, notifying them about her pensionary benefits issue. However, she was informed that she was not eligible for a pension or other applicable benefits for High Court judges. 

In response, she filed a writ petition through her advocate Akshay Naik on July 19 to challenge the communication from the registrar of the High Court, seeking directions to the judicial authorities to grant her the pensionary benefits applicable to High Court judges. 

Justice Ganediwala's judicial career began in 2007 when she was appointed as a District Judge. She later became an additional judge of the Bombay High Court on February 8, 2019, for a two-year term. The Supreme Court Collegium initially recommended her for a permanent judgeship in the High Court but later withdrew the recommendation due to certain contentious judgments she authored. 

The controversial judgments under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) included three acquittals in separate cases. The most notable of these was the "skin-to-skin" judgment on January 19, 2021, which sparked controversy and was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. 

As a result of these rulings, the Collegium decided not to make her a permanent judge, and her tenure as an additional judge was extended by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for one more year. Subsequently, she resigned on February 10, 2022, as she was not recommended for a permanent judgeship. 

In her current plea, Justice Ganediwala argues that she is entitled to a pension regardless of whether she superannuated or took voluntary retirement from her judicial office. She claims to have served as an additional judge for nearly 3 years but had a longer tenure of over 11 years and 3 months as a district judge. 

The respondents to her petition include the High Court through its registrar general, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, and the State Law and Judiciary Department. The case is yet to be scheduled for a hearing.