ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS on 19 May 2023

26

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2023] 7 S.C.R.

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION

A

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643/2015)

BMAY 19, 2023

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ANDPAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]

Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations of theCSecond National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC/Commission) onpay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc.– Revision of paystructure was accepted vide order dtd. 27.07.2022 – Review petitionsfiled by some States and the Union were dismissed vide order dtd.05.04.2023 – Benefits of the recommendations as regards pay beDgiven w.e.f 01.01.2016 – No change in percentage of pension forretirees on or after 01.01.2016 – Multiplier of 2.81 to apply topensioners as well – For judicial officers retired before 01.01.2016,the revised pension should be 50% of the last drawn pay – Necessaryamendments to be carried out in Service Rules of the Judicial Officersacross all jurisdictions – High Courts and the competent authoritiesEto bring the rules in conformity with the various recommendationsaccepted by Supreme Court within 3 months – Compliance affidavitsbe placed on record by the High Courts, the States and the Unionwithin 4 months – Vide orders dtd. 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, allarrears of pay were already directed to be cleared by 30.06.2023 –FCompliance affidavits be filed by 30.07.2023 – Approved revisedrates of pension shall be payable from 01.07.2023 – For the paymentof arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiralbenefits, following the Orders dtd. 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, 25%be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and theremaining 50% by 31.12.2023 – Matters to be listed for furtherGcompliance on pay and pension.

Judiciary – District Judiciary – Principles evolved for judicialpay, pension and allowances – Held: A unified judiciary requiresuniform designations and service conditions of judicial officersacross the country – Judges are not employees of the State but are H

holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power – Theyare only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers inthe executive – Parity cannot be claimed between staff of thelegislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicialwing – The independence of the judiciary requires that pay of judicialofficers must be stand-alone and not compared to that of staff ofthe political executive or the legislature – Independence of thejudiciary, which includes the District Judiciary, is part of the basicstructure of the Constitution – Access to an independent judiciaryenforces fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of theConstitution – The essential function of all judicial officers in theDistrict Judiciary and judges of the High Court and this Court isessentially the same – Principles discussed – Doctrine of inherentpowers – Constitution of India – Article 125, 221.

Issuing directions, the Court

HELD:1.1 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONSON PAY

Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pay-I.Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with theAll India Pattern

In India, the judiciary is unified. The designations of judges,therefore, ought to be uniform across the country. In this regard,the First National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC) suggestedthe following nomenclature to be adopted pan- India:i. Civil Judge(Jr. Div); ii. Civil Judge (Sr. Div); iii. District Judge. A thoroughexamination by the SNJPC revealed that these designations havenot been adopted in few states. This recommendation had beenaccepted in the FNJPC by virtue of judgment in All India Judges’Assn. (II) v. Union of India. This direction be followed by the HighCourts and all High Courts amend their designations in conformitywith the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC. It is also relevantto note that in light of the pay matrix suggested by the SNJPC,without uniform designations, issues may arise in the future forfitment of the different designations which are used in the differentstates. Such complications ought to be avoided by this Court.Thus, the recommendation of the Commission is accepted.Consequently, the High Courts are directed to ensure that the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adesignation of judicial officers is uniformly the same. [Paras 42-45][58-G; 59-A-E]

II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model As the recommendation of the SNJPC is only to bring thepay structure in conformity with the 7th Central Pay Commission,Bthere cannot be any objection on these recommendations. Thus,it is directed that the pay structure of the Judicial Officers bemodified suitably, reflecting the recommendations suggested bythe SNJPC. [Para 46][59-F-G]

III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform ApplicationC

The pay of judicial officers is to be increased commensurateto the pay of the Judges of High Courts. When the judges of theHigh Courts were granted a multiplier of 2.81, the judicial officerswere also to be granted the same multiplier. This has been theprecedent set by the previous Judicial Pay Commissions andDendorsed by this Court repeatedly. This Court has alreadyrejected the objections of the States and the Union andconsequently accepted the multiplier/Index of Rationalization of2.81 in Order dated 27.07.202223 and Order dated 05.04.202324.The multiplier/index of rationalization as suggested by the SNJPCEbe accepted. The pay of the judicial officers be increased as perthe Table-I annexed to the Order dated 27.07.2022. [Paras 48-50][60-C-F]

IV. Increments

The recommendations of the Commission in so far as itFnotionally grants the increment for the purposes of pension iscompletely justified. As a consequence of the acceptance of therecommendation, the calculation of pension must notionallyinclude the increment for the purposes of calculation of pension.The High Courts are directed to amend the applicable rule tostate that the increment which becomes due to the judicial officerGon the day after his retirement may be notionally included in thecalculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the verticalceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-. [Para 55][61-G; 62-A-B]

V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to PayMatrix SystemH

The Commission recommended the formula and methodto ensure that the migration from the master pay scale to the paymatrix system is smooth. The Commission has devised thefitment/migration formula. While accepting this recommendationfor fitment/migration as amended by the Corrigendum datedMarch 2021, the examples must form part of the relevant rulesthat are required to be encoded by the High Courts, the Statesand the Union. Therefore, the recommendation is accepted andthe authorities are directed to implement the same keeping inmind the examples that have been given by the Commission.[Paras 56, 59][62-C; 63-C]

VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016

VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016

The 7th Central Pay Commission came into force from01.01.2016. However, the last pay revision of the judicial officerswas with effect from 01.01.2006. More than 17 years have passedsince the judicial officers have received a pay revision. Notingthis, the recommendation must be accepted by this Court. Thebenefits of the recommendations as regards pay be given effectto with effect from 01.01.2016. [Para 60][63-E-F]

VII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government The recommendation of the SNJPC is that DearnessAllowance may be paid at the rate fixed by the CentralGovernment. A fixed rate of Dearness Allowance would alsoensure that there is no lag in the accrual of the dearness allowanceto the judicial officers. A uniform rate of DA would achieve thegoals of uniformity as well as efficiency. In such circumstances,the recommendation deserves acceptance. [Paras 62, 63][64-E,G;65-A]

VIII. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div)

The Commission suggested that the 1st Assured CareerProgression be given to the Civil Judges (Jr Div) be granted onthe basis of relaxed norms of performance. The grant of 1st ACPto Civil Judge (Jr Div) be given on the basis of relaxed normswhich may be devised by the High Courts, with reference to thesuggestions of the Commission. [Paras 64, 69][65-B; 66-D-E]

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

AAll India Judges Association (III) v. Union of India,(2002) 4 SCC 247 : [2002] 2 SCR 712; All India JudgesAssociation (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170;All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India(2022) 7 SCC494 – referred to.

BIX. Delay in Grant of ACP

A perusal of the Commission’s Report shows that, in manystates, the grant of ACP scale is delayed. The SNJPC’s findingthat the lack of timely preparation and scrutiny of ACR is theprimary reason behind delay is concerning. ACRs are bound toCbe done in a timely manner and without delay so as to ensure thatthe whole judicial system is functioning in an efficient manner.Accordingly, the High Courts may be directed to ensure that thedelay in making ACRs is avoided in the future. To avoid thisdelay in the future, the Commission suggested that the processof grant of ACP should be initiated 3 months in advance from theDdate on which the judicial officers will be completing 5/10 yearsand the financial benefits should be paid to the judicial officerwithin a period of 6 months after the judicial officer steps into the6th/11th year of Service. Therefore, the Commissionrecommended that if grant of ACP is delayed for every year, oneEadditional increment shall be granted for every year of delaysubject to the adjustment with the ACP arrears. Therecommendations of the Commission are reasonable. Thus, therecommendation merits acceptance. [Paras 70-73][66-E-G; 67-A-C]

FX. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges ofIndustrial Tribunals/Labour Courts The recommendation of theTribunal that the pay revision be extended to judges of theIndustrial Tribunals/Labour Courts merits acceptance as it is onlyan extension of the law laid down by this Court. [Para 77][68-C-E]GState of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC219 : [2008] 9 SCR 1078; State of Maharashtra v.Labour Law Practitioners & Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688: [1998] 1 SCR 793 – relied on.

H

XI. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra The recommendation of the Commission is that the Judgesof the Family Court also be entitled to the benefit of SelectionGrade and Super Time Scale as well. The Commission furtherrecommends that quarters also be given to them from the generalpool of accommodation. The recommendation of the SNJPC is inline with the same principles as laid down by this Court in State ofKerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and State of Maharashtra v. LabourLaw Practitioners’ Assn. for Labour Courts. When equal work isdone by the judicial officers, their pay and conditions of servicemust also be equal. Thus, the recommendation of the Commissionis accepted. [Paras 79, 80][68-G; 69-A-B]

XII. Minimum Remuneration to Special JudicialMagistrates (Second Class) and Special Metropolitan Magistrates The recommendations and their modifications/acceptanceis tabulated.

1.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ONPENSION, GRATUITY ETC.

I.No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On orAfter 01.01.2016

The Commission has not recommended any change in thecurrent percentage of pension, fixed at 50% of last drawn pay forpension and 30% for last drawn pay for family pension. The FNJPChad also recommended this position and this Court had acceptedit. Therefore, when no change is recommended, no real objectionscan be raised regarding the recommendation. [Para 86][76-B-C]

II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be50% of the Last Drawn Pay After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the One-Person Commission, the Commission recommended that forjudicial officers who retired before 01.01.2016, the revisedpension should be 50% of the last drawn pay of the post held atthe time of retirement. This is also unchanged in its formulationand thus remains the same. [Para 87][76-D]

III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe recommendation of the Commission is that themultiplier of 2.81 will equally apply to pensioners as well as withthe recommendation on fitment in pay, the SNJPC has issued acorrigendum on fitment in its Supplemental Report dated March2021. This Corrigendum corrects arithmetical mistakes made inthe original report. Therefore, the fitment table must be construedBin accordance with the corrected table on fitment. The multiplierwhich applies to pay must also apply to pension. Consequently,the pensioners must be therefore fitted into the same scheme inthe pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted. [Paras88-90][76-E-F, G-H; 77-A]CIV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers whoRetired Prior to 01.01.1996

The Commission noted that due to a discrepancy in thereport of the One-Person Commission, the pension granted tojudicial officers who retired after 2006 was not being given inDparity to those who retired before 2006. The recommendation ofthe Commission is only in furtherance of parity. StateGovernments have, in the past, been directed to undertake theconsequential re-fixation before. However, if such consequentialre-fixation has not been undertaken, the officers who had retiredEprior to 1996, and who would have aged significantly would bediscriminated against. Such a situation ought to be avoided andthus the recommendation merits acceptance. Thisrecommendation is directed to be implemented immediately andwithout delay. [Paras 91, 92][77-B-C, E-F]

FV. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculatingpension The recommendation, being the implementation of thejudgment of this Court, merits acceptance. [Para 93][78-B]

Government of NCT Delhi v All India Young LawyersGAssociation (2009) 14 SCC 49 : [2009] 3 SCR 555 –relied on.

VI. Recommendations on Family Pension

As regards family pension, the Commission has notrecommended any change in the existing percentage, i.e., 30%H

of the last drawn pay. Therefore, this recommendation, as such,does not warrant any further deliberation as it is the merecontinuation of the existing regime. The recommendation isaccepted. At the same time, the Commission has recommendedpayment of family pension @ 30% to the eligible family memberafter the death of the spouse. This benefit has been given in lightof Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similarbenefits to members of the central civil services. Thisrecommendation is also thus accepted as it has been granted tomembers of the central civil services. The quantum of familypension must be increased as per the same multiplier/index ofrationalization applicable for pension. This is because the samefactors which are applicable to pay and pension leading to theirincrease also equally apply to family pension. The Commissionhas also recommended the same. The recommendation isaccepted and it is directed that the quantum of family pensionalso worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension isworked out. The last recommendation is that on the income limitprescribed by States to be eligible for family pension. Theminimum limit prescribed by the Commission was Rs. 30,000/-.This limit is reasonable but it must be left to the discretion of theStates to prescribe a higher limit which is more beneficial to thejudicial officers. Thus, the recommendation is accepted. [Paras94-97][78-C-G]

VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension On account of the additional assistance required onincreasing age, it has been the policy of the Central Governmentto grant additional quantum of pension. The Commission hasrecommended the payment of additional quantum of pension fromthe age of 75 years onwards. Given that many of the States grantedthis benefit from the age of 70 and the Commission recommendedthe grant of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75.This reasoning of the Commission merits acceptance. If Stateshave been granting more beneficial pension rates, it cannot bedenied to the judicial officers. Judicial Officers cannot be left worseoff than officers of the State. Therefore, this Court accepts thisrecommendation. The Commission has further recommended that AB

CDE

F

G

H

Athis benefit be paid from 01.01.2016. As with the other similarrecommendations for the aspects of pay and pension, thisrecommendation is accepted. If judicial officers have already beengranted a more beneficial regime and are moved to the regimesuggested by the Commission and accepted by the Court, norecovery ought to be made against them. Consequently, it is leftBto the States to continue the benefits upto the age of 75 years aswell. These recommendations are accordingly accepted. [Para98, 100-102][78-H; 79-A, C-F]

VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity

VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity

CThe first recommendation on Gratuity by the Commissionis to bring the calculation of gratuity on par with Rule 50(1)(a) ofthe Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There cannotbe any dispute regarding this recommendation as it is to bringabout uniformity in conditions of service. Therefore, thisrecommendation merits acceptance by this Court. TheDCommission further recommended that the maximum limit forretirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs whichshall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. Thisrecommendation has also been made in accordance with theReport of the 7th CPC, and the purpose of the same is to ensureEthat the cost of living does not make the gratuity without purpose.Therefore, this recommendation also merits acceptance by theCourt. The third recommendation is to make therecommendations effective from 01.01.2016. Therecommendations must come into force from 01.01.2016.Consequentially, those judicial officers who retired afterF01.01.2016 must also benefit from the acceptance of the Report.Thus, the Commission has suggested that the differential gratuitybe paid to them subject to the revised maximum limit. This ismerely consequential and is accepted by this Court. The finalrecommendation made by the Commission on the subject ofGgratuity is that death gratuity be paid on the same lines as the 7thCPC. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted as it is inline with the already accepted principles laid down by this Court.[Paras 103-106][79-G-H; 80-A-D]

IX. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case ofDeathH

The Commission has recommended that where a judicialofficer dies while in service, the family pension and death cumretirement gratuity as per the applicable rules is payable to thespouse/dependent, of the deceased officer. The recommendationof the Commission is in terms of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension)Rules, 1972. This recommendation is reasonable and infurtherance of the principle of uniformity across services.Therefore, it merits acceptance by this Court. [Para 108][80-F-G]

All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India (1993)4 SCC 288 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 749; S.P. Gupta v.Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 : [1982] SCR 365;Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union ofIndia (1993) 4 SCC 441 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659;Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, In re, (1998) 7 SCC739 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400; Supreme CourtAdvocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2016) 5SCC 1 : [2015] 13 SCR 1; Director, KPTCL v. CPMundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401;AnitaKushwaha v. Pushap Sudan(2016) 8 SCC 509 : [2016]9 SCR 560 – relied on.

All India Judges Association. v. Union of India (2019)12 SCC 314;Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012)6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305; Hussainara Khatoon(I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 :[1979] 3 SCR 169;Commissioner of Police Delhi v.Registrar, Delhi High Court (1996) 6 SCC 323 : [1996]7 Suppl. SCR 432;Mohd. Hussain v. Govt. of NCT ofDelhi (2012) 9 SCC 408 : [2012] 10 SCR 480;All IndiaJudges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC720;Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2021) SCCOnline All 1090;Bengal Chemical & PharmaceuticalWorks Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1969) 2 SCR 113;All IndiaJudges Assn. v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 444; AllIndia Judges Assn. v. Union of India WP(C) No.1022/1989 Order dated 14.07.2016;All India Judges Assn.v. Union of India WP(C) No.1022/1989 Order dated13.03.2018 – referred to.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

36SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ACommonwealth ex rel Carroll vs. Tate, 274 A.2d. 193 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

GCIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.643of 2015.

(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)

With

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6471-6473 of 2020 AndContempt Petition (Civil) Nos.711 of 2022, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 848 Of2023 In Writ Petition (Civil) No.643 of 2015

Kuldeep Parihar, Dy AG, K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G., B.K. Satija,Hemant Gupta, Barun Kumar Sinha, Nikhil Goel, Nachiketa Joshi, GauravDhama, Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.Gs., Gourab Banerjee, P. VishwanathaShetty, V. Giri, Jaideep Gupta, Sanjay Parikh, Vinod Ghai, Dr. ManishSinghvi, Sr. Advs., K. Parameshwar, (Amicus Curiae), Ms. MayuriRaghuvanshi, VP Singh, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha Rathore,Subhro, Milind Kumar, Deepak Prakash, V. N. Raghupathy, Wasim Qadri,Mohd Akhil, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rajan Kumar Chourasia,Arvind Kumar Sharma, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Anmol Chandan,Vatsal Joshi, Annirudh Sharma-(ii), Ishaan Sharma, Dr. N. Visakamurthy,Kanu Agrawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kr. Verma,Gurmeet Singh Makker, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Amrish Kumar, MaheshThakur, Ms. Geetanjali Bedi, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ms. Shivani, GopalJha, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,Mahesh P. Shinde, Ms. Rucha A. Pande, M. Veeraragavan, SandeepSudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. MaitrayeeBanerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Apoorv Kurup, Ms. KirtiDadheech, Ojaswa Pathak, Ms. Kavita Jha, James P. Thomas, RaviSagar, P. I. Jose, Naresh K. Sharma, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind KumarTripathi, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Nikhil Goel, Ms. Naveen Goel, Ms. PragatiNeekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Nishant Kumar, Sunando Sir, AnupamRaina, Krishnanand Pandeya, Harshit Gupta, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa,Likhi Chand Bonsle, Rahat Bansal, Ms. Komal Mundhra, T. G. NarayananNair, A. Radhakrishnan, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. SagunSrivastava, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Niranjan Sahu,Debabrata Dash, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ashok Mathur, Mukul Kumar,Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, M/s. Arputham Arunaand Co, Mukesh K. Giri, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, K VGirish Chowdary, T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee,Ms. Niti Richhariya, Shuvodeep Roy, Sai Shashank, Deepayan Dutta,Manish Kumar, Sumeer Sodhi, Devashish Tiwari, Gaurav Arora, Ms.Sujata Kurdukar, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Payal Gupta, SamarVijay Singh, Shivang Jain, Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Ms. Purva, Arun KumarJaiswal, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Amrita Verma, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ms.Pratishtha Vij, Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Akshay C.Shrivastava, Shailesh Madiyal, Vaibhav Sabharwal, Akshay Kumar, Rajiv A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2023] 7 S.C.R.

AShankar Dvivedi, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, V. N. Raghupathy,Manendra Pal Gupta, Mrs. Ansha Varma, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs.Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Ms. Manicka Priya, Riddhi Bose, SunnyChoudhary, Ankit Mishra, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya AniruddhaPande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Shreya Saxena, Ms. Yamini Singh, SouravSingh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ritwik Parikh, Ms.BAnupama Ngangom, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Nirnimesh Dube, SiddheshKotwal, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Nihar Dharmadhikari,Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shibashish Misra, Ajay Pal, MayankDahiya, Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, SameerCAbhyankar, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. SugandhRathore, Sabarish Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, VishnuUnnikrishnan, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, C Kranthi Kumar, SriharshaPeechara, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Ms. Pallavi, Duvvuri SubrahmanyaBhanu, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sanjay Kumar, Sunil Kumar Tomar, Pawan,Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Parijat Sinha, Ms.DMadhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Annant, Ms.Arushi Mishra, Chirag M. Shroff, Aravindh S., Ms. Uma BhuvaneswariC., Abbas, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Ankur Kashyap, Rohit Rajershi, AmanBajaj, Gopal Jha, Gaurav Agrawal, Uday B. Dube, Ms. Arti Gupta, Ms.Kanti, Advs. for the appearing parties.EThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:

INDEX*

1. Introduction to pay commissions .............................. 4

2. The SNJPC’s Report and the Orders of this Court . 5

F

3. Submissions of Counsel.............................................. 7

4. Principles Evolved for Judicial Pay, Pension and Allowances.........................................................10

I. Uniformity in Designations and ServiceG

Conditions ................................................................10

II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political Executive .................................................. 11H*Ed. Note : Pagination in the Table is as per the original judgment.

40SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

VIII.DA on basis of Rates fixed by CentralGovernment (Recommendation 44.14) ...............27IX. Grant of 1[st] ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div) (Recommendation 44.15 (i))...................28

X. Delay in Grant of ACP (Recommendation 44.15(ii))....................................................................30

XI. Changes in Percentage of DistrictJudges (Selection Grade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale) (Recommendation 44.16)....30

XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (Recommendation 44.19) .........................31XIII.Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra (Recommendation 44.18) ...............32

XIV. Minimum Remuneration to SpecialJudicial Magistrates (Second Class) andSpecial Metropolitan Magistrates (Recommendation 44.19) ....................................... 32

6. Recommendations on Pension, Gratuity andAge of Retirement Etc..............................................37

7. Considerations of Recommendations onPension, Gratuity etc................................................40

I. No Change in Percentage of Pension for RetireesOn or After 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 39.1)...........................................................................40II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the Last Drawn Pay ................40

H

III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners inPay Matrix (Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4) ....41IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officerswho Retired Prior to 01.01.1996(Recommendation no. 39.5) ..................................41V. .......Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar whilecalculating pension (Recommendation

1. INTRODUCTION TO PAY COMMISSIONS

1. The District Judiciary[1] is the backbone of the judicial system.Vital to the judicial system is the independence of the judicial officers 1No longer should this Court refer to the District Judiciary as ‘subordinate judiciary’.Not only is this a misnomer because the District Judge is not per se subordinate to anyother person in the exercise of her jurisdiction but also is disrespectful to the constitutional A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Aserving in the District Judiciary. To secure their impartiality, it is importantto ensure their financial security and economic independence. To thisend, at the instance of the All India Judges Association, this Court, in1993 found the need to state that there must be a Judicial Pay Commission,separate and independent from the Executive in order to ensure that thesystem of checks and balances are in place, and the Judiciary has a sayBin their pay and service conditions.[2]

2. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the First National JudicialPay Commission (“FNJPC”) was constituted by the Government of Indiaby Resolution dated 21.03.1996. The FNJPC, headed by Justice K.Jagannatha Shetty, submitted a comprehensive report on 11.11.1999.CThis comprehensive report contained recommendations on pay, pensionand allowances as well as other service conditions pertaining to the districtjudiciary. After prolonged proceedings, on 21.03.2002, this Court approvedthe recommendations of the FNJPC pertaining to emoluments withcertain modifications relating to allowances.[3] Notably, theDrecommendations were accepted with effect from 01.01.1996. This wasbecause the employees of the Central Government were given thebenefits of the 5[th] Central Pay Commission from that date.

3. Within the next few years, the Central Government appointedthe 6[th] Central Pay Commission, and the Commission made itsErecommendations which were accepted from 01.01.2006. To ensurethat the District Judiciary does not lag behind, this Court once againstepped in at the instance of the very same All India Judges Association.This Court appointed a One-Person Commission headed by Justice EPadmanabhan (Retd Judge of the High Court of Madras) by Order dated28.04.2009. The One-Person Commission once again submitted a report,Fwhich was accepted by this Court by Order dated 20.04.2010.[4] Therevised pay scales, which are currently in force, as recommended bythis Commission, were made effective from 01.01.2006.

position of a District Judge. Our Constitution recognizes and protects a District Judgeas a vital cog in the judicial system. Respect ought to be accorded to this institution andGits contribution to the country.

See also, Upendra Baxi, The judiciary as a resource for Indian democracy, India Seminar,November 2010 – available at https://www.india-seminar.com/2010/615/615_upendra_baxi.htm.

2 All India Judges’ Association (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288.

3 All India Judges’ Association (III) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247.

4All India Judges Association (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170.H

2. THE SNJPC’S REPORTAND THE ORDERS OFTHIS COURT

4. Ten years later, the 7th Central Pay Commission submitted itsreport and its recommendations were accepted by the CentralGovernment with effect from 01.01.2016. Correspondingly, in the presentwrit petition, once again at the instance of the All India Judges Association,this Court has been called upon to intervene and update/upgrade theservice conditions of the judicial officers.

5. This Court by the order dated 09.05.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 643/2015 appointed the Second National Judicial Pay Commission headedby Justice P.V. Reddi (Retd.) as its Chairman with Senior Advocate RBasant (Former Judge) as its Member[5]. Pursuant to the order of thisHon’ble Court, the Government of India, by its Resolution dated10.11.2017[6], constituted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission(“Commission/SNJPC”). As per the Resolution, the terms of referenceof the Commission are as follows:

(a) To evolve the principles which should govern the structureof pay and other emoluments of judicial officers belongingto the subordinate judiciary all over the country.

(b) To examine the present structure of emoluments andconditions of service of judicial officers in the States andUTs taking into account the total packet of benefits availableto them and make suitable recommendations including post-retirement benefits such as pension, etc. having regard amongother relevant factors, to the existing relativities in the paystructure between the officers belonging to subordinatejudicial services vis-à-vis other civil servants and mechanismfor redressal of grievances in this regard.

(c) To examine the work methods and work environment asalso the variety of allowance and benefits in kind that areavailable to judicial officers in addition to pay and to suggestrationalisation and simplification thereof with a view topromoting efficiency in judicial administration, optimising thesize of judiciary, etc. and to remove anomalies created in implementation of earlier recommendations.

5 All India Judges Association. v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 314.

6 Notified vide Notification No. 19018/01/2017 dated 16.11.2017 by the Departmentof Justice.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

A(d) To consider and recommend such interim relief as itconsiders just and proper to all categories of judicial officersof all the States/Union Territories. The interim relief, ifrecommended, shall have to be fully adjusted against andincluded in the package which may become admissible to thejudicial officers on the final recommendations of theBCommission.

(e) To recommend the mechanism for setting up of a permanentmechanism to review the pay and service conditions ofmembers of subordinate judiciary periodically by anindependent commission exclusively constituted for thepurpose and the composition of such commission shouldreflect adequate representation on behalf of the judiciary.

C

6. It is seen from the Report of the Commission that it held region-wise consultative conferences in the cities of Guwahati, Mumbai, Kolkata,Kochi, Delhi, Chandigarh, Chennai, Lucknow, Bhopal, VisakhapatnamDand Srinagar where long deliberations took place with the representativesof the All India Judges’ Association, All India Retired Judges’ Association,State Associations, officials of the Registry and deputed officers of HighCourts and senior government officers. A perusal of the Report indicatesthat the Commission has analyzed the representations from variousEsources and periodically consulted with several experts while preparingworking sheets and calculations.

7. After wide consultation, the Commission realized a need forinterim relief to be granted to judicial officers as their pay had not beenincreased for more than 10 years. Thus, they submitted a Report onInterim Relief to this Court 09.03.2018. Considering that the judicialFofficers were without updated/upgraded pay, this Court, by order dated27.03.2018, directed the States and the Union of India to implement therecommendations of the Commission with regard to interim relief.

8. Subsequently, on 29.01.2020, the Commission submitted its FinalReport to this Court. The Report has recommendations which coverGPay Structure (Volume I), Pension and Family Pension (Volume III) andAllowances (Volume IV). A separate part of the report viz., Part IIdeals with the issue of establishing a permanent mechanism to determinesubjects of service conditions of the District Judiciary.

9. This Court took cognizance of the Report on 28.02.2020. ForHthe assistance of the Court, amici curiae were appointed. The States and the Union of India were directed to file their objections, if any, to theReport. The Court observed that over the years, the primary objectionto the implementation of the various directions concerning the serviceconditions of the district judiciary is the alleged paucity of financialresources, and rejected this objection even before the States could raiseit.

3. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL

10. The Amicus Curiae, K Parameshwar placed therecommendations of the Commission and its reasoning before this Court.Detailed notes of submissions have been filed by the amicus curiaetabulating the recommendations and supplementing the same withadditional reasoning. He also detailed the objections put forward by theStates and the Union and rebutted them with clarity.

11. The Amicus Curiae also laid stress on the principles on whichthe recommendations of the Commission draw their strength. He broadlysuggested five principles for the consideration of the Court. Firstly, hesubmitted that the independence of the district judiciary is part of theBasic Structure of the Constitution. He stated that the judgments of theCourt, thus far, have recognized the principle of independence of judiciaryonly in the context of the High Courts and the Supreme Court andsubmitted that this principle ought to equally apply to the District Judiciary.

12. He then submitted that the principle of independence of thejudiciary is an integral part of Part III of the Constitution, as it ensures aguarantee to a fair trial. He argued that therefore, the independence ofthe judiciary must be seen as a guarantee under Article 21 of theConstitution.

13. The third principle, in his submission, was that the doctrine ofinherent powers, as noticed by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Unionof India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 and suggested by the Report of the TaskForce on Judicial Impact Assessment (chaired by Justice (Retd) MJagannadha Rao) would require the Judiciary to compel payment ofreasonable sums of money to carry out its constitutionally mandatedresponsibilities. To this end, he also relied on Article 50 of theConstitution which mandates that “The State shall take steps to separatethe judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”

14. He then submitted, relying on the Order dated 05.04.2023[7]passed by this Court in the review proceedings, that there is an 7Hereinafter, “Review Order”.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aequivalence of core judicial function between Judicial Officers in theDistrict Judiciary and the Judges of the High Court. Therefore, hesubmitted that the increase in pay of the High Court judges must equallyreflect in the increase of pay of judicial officers of the District Judiciary.

15. Lastly, he submitted that in a unified judicial system, the serviceBconditions, designations etc. must be uniform across the country. Herelied on the judgment of this Court in All India Judges Association v.Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288 as well as the reports of the FNJPCand SNJPC to contend that the uniformity must be maintained acrossthe country in terms of pay and designation of the District Judiciary.

C16. The Petitioners, i.e., the All India Judges Association wererepresented by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate. He supported theReport of the SNJPC and supported the arguments made by the amicuscuriae. He also brought to the attention of this Court a recent decisionin Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401 todefend the recommendation of the Commission on the accrual of lastDincrement for the purposes of pension. He also sought to support therecommendation of the Commission on additional quantum of pension tobe given from the age of 75 years by contending that the same is notonly reasonable but is also already given by a number of States from aneven younger age. In this regard, he also submitted that the age ofEretirement of district judges is lower than that of High Court and SupremeCourt judges and therefore, they must be entitled to retiral benefits at ayounger age.

17. The arguments on behalf of the All India Retired JudgesAssociation were put forward by V Giri, Senior Advocate. WhileFsupporting the contentions made by the Amicus Curiae as well as GourabBanerji, Senior Advocate, he reiterated the need for an urgentimplementation of the Report of the SNJPC, especially in respect ofpension to be paid to retired officers.

18. The counter-arguments were led by KM Nataraj, the Ld.Additional Solicitor General of India who appeared for the State of UttarGPradesh. He was also supplemented by Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG forTamil Nadu, Ms Pratishtha Vij, counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh,Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Counsel for the State of Maharashtra,Nachiketa Joshi, Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Ajay Pal,Counsel for the State of Punjab, Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Counsel forHthe State of West Bengal, Shuvodeep Roy, Counsel for the State of Assam, Shailesh Madiyal, Counsel for the UT of Jammu and Kashmir,Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Counsel for the State of Manipur,Deepanwita Priyanka, Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat,B.K. Satija, AAG for the State of Haryana, Kuldeep Singh Parihar,Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand appearing for the States.

19. They firstly contended that the multiplier of 2.81 cannot beapplied to the District Judiciary across the cadres. It is their argumentthat the 7[th] CPC recommended a graded pay increase across differentcadres of the employees of the Central Government and therefore, thesame has to be applied even for the judiciary. Thereafter, they onceagain argued that the States do not have sufficient financial resources tomeet the increase in pay as suggested by the SNJPC. As regards therecommendation on increment to be accrued for the purposes of pensionto the judicial officer in spite of her retirement, they contended that sincethe applicable Rules in their State do not provide for such accrual forGovernment Employees, the same cannot be given to judicial officers.The States also opposed the grant of retirement gratuity as suggested bythe SNJPC. They argued that their State Rules which are prevalentprovide for a uniform rate across cadres and services in the State andtherefore, the recommendation cannot be accepted by them. Lastly, theycontended that the minimum eligibility for Family Pension must be lessthan Rs. 30,000, as suggested by the Commission.

20. Before considering the recommendations of the SNJPC onpay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc., it is necessary to considercertain principles concerning judiciary that have a direct bearing on ourdecision on the recommendations.

4. PRINCIPLES EVOLVED FOR JUDICIAL PAY, PENSIONAND ALLOWANCES

21. This Court has dealt with three different Judicial PayCommission and has evolved certain principles, which form theunderpinning of judicial pay, pension and allowances. The first principleis that a unified judiciary requires uniform designations and serviceconditions of judicial officers across the country. The second principleis that the independence of the judiciary requires that pay of judicialofficers must be stand-alone and not compared to that of staff of thepolitical executive or the legislature. The third principle is that theindependence of the judiciary, which includes the District Judiciary, ispart of the basic structure of the Constitution. The fourth principle is A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

Athat the access to an independent judiciary enforces fundamental rightsguaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The fifth principle is thatthe essential function of all judicial officers in the District Judiciary andjudges of the High Court and this Court is essentially the same.

I.Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions B

22. India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of theConstitution. A unified judiciary necessarily entails that the serviceconditions of judges of one state are equivalent to similar posts of judgesof other states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to ensurethat the judicial system is uniform, effective and efficient in its functioning.CEfficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacityto be provided with the right incentives and promotion opportunities tomaintain the high level of functioning of the judiciary.

23. This Court in All India Judges Association (II)[8] has notedthe position of law and observed that uniform designations and hierarchy,Dwith uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessaryconsequences. It was held:

“14. … Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unifiedinstitution judicially though not administratively.Henceuniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform serviceconditions are unavoidable necessary consequences.Thefurther directions given, therefore, should not be looked uponas an encroachment on the powers of the executive and thelegislature to determine the service conditions of the judiciary.They are directions to perform the long overdue obligatoryduties.”

E

FII. Separation of Powers and Comparison with PoliticalExecutive

24. Separation of powers demands that the officers of theJudiciary be treated separately and distinct from the staff of the legislativeand executive wings. It must be remembered the judges are not employeesGof the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicialpower. In that sense, they are only comparable to members of thelegislature and ministers in the executive. Parity, thus, cannot be claimedbetween staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with officers 8All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 14.H

of the judicial wing. This Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Unionof India,[9] explained the distinction and held that those who exercisethe State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges,and not the members of their staff who implement or assist inimplementing their decisions. Thus, there cannot be any objection thatjudicial officers receive pay which is not at par with executive staff. Inthis context, it may also be remembered that Article 50 of the Constitutiondirects the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from theExecutive.

25. This distinction is also important because judicial independencefrom the executive and the legislature requires the judiciary to have asay in matters of their finances. This Court has previously noted thattheoretically, allowing the Executive to decide the pay of the judiciarymay lead to unintended consequences.[10] Therefore, to secure trueindependence of the judiciary, this Court has recognized that the pay ofjudicial officers is separate and distinct from the pay of staff of otherwings of the State. This, it may be noted, is nothing but an articulation ofthe doctrine of inherent powers. This doctrine mandates that the judiciarymust possess the inherent power to “compel payment of those sumsof money which are reasonable and necessary to carry out itsmandated responsibilities, and its powers and duties to administerjustice.”[11] This doctrine is only the logical conclusion of separation ofpowers and ensures that the independence of the judiciary is secured.

26. The submission of the States that there is a paucity of financialresources must be examined from this aspect of the matter. The Statesand the Union have repeatedly stated that the burden on the financialresources of the States/Union due to the Report of the SNJPC issignificant and therefore the Report cannot be implemented. Withoutthe doctrine of inherent powers, any de-funding of the Judiciary cannotbe repelled.

9All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 7.

10In All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 10: “Itwould be against the spirit of the Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in thatbehalf, for theoretically it would not be impossible for the executive or the legislature toturn and twist the tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a consequencewould be against one of the seminal mandates of the Constitution, namely, to maintainthe independence of the judiciary.”

11Commonwealth ex rel Carroll vs. Tate, 274 A.2d. 193. Approved by this Court in BrijMohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 at para 110 – 111.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A27. Apart from this, Judicial Officers have been working withouta pay revision for nearly 15 years. A pay revision has been recommendedin accordance with the law laid down by this Court and a report submittedby a Judicial Pay Commission after considering this very objection. ThisCourt has also examined this issue of paucity of financial resources onat least three occasions in these very proceedings. In the Order datedB28.02.2020, which took cognizance of the Report of the SNJPC, thisCourt stated that it hoped that “the same objections, which have beenrejected by this Court in All India Judges Association v. Union ofIndia (1993) 4 SCC 288, will not be re-agitated. The Court in theaforesaid judgment observed that compared to the other plan andCnon-plan expenditures, the financial burden caused on account ofthe directions given therein are negligible.” [12] However, the Statesand the Union raised this objection in their affidavits before this Court.

28. After going through the affidavits of the States and the Union,this Court on 27.07.2022 found that in contrast to the 7[th] Central PayDCommission, which was implemented from 01.01.2016, judicial officershave not received any similar benefit. Thus, the Court held that “there isa need to at least implement the revised pay structure immediatelyso as to alleviate the sufferings of the judicial officers.”[13] The Court,after considering the objections of the Union and the State rejected thesame and accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended byEthe SNJPC. Aggrieved by the acceptance of the Report, the Union fileda review petition before this Court. This Court by Order dated 05.04.2023dismissed the review petitions and found that the financial implicationscannot be considered as excessive in view of the information given bythe SNJPC.[14] Still, the States and the Union have raised this objectionFafter its express rejection twice over. The rejection of their objection isalso reiterated. Judicial Officers cannot be left in the lurch for prolongedperiods of time without a revision of pay on an alleged paucity of financialresources.

29. This Court in its Review Order dated 05.04.2023 has explainedGthis position in the following words:

“4. In view of the above discussion, the issue is whether thereis any compelling need to reduce the quantum of increase 12 Order dated 28.02.2020 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 7.13 Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 13.H14 Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.

proposed by applying a lower multiplier so as to marginallyreduce the gap between entry level IAS officers (in Juniorand Senior time scales) and Judicial Officers at the first twolevels (Civil Judge, Junior and Senior Divisions). Such anexercise is not warranted for more than one reason. Firstly,the initial starting pay must be such as to offer an incentiveto talented youngsters to join judicial service. Secondly, theapplication of a multiplier/ factor less than 2.81 would resultin a deviation from the principle adopted by SNJPC that theextent of increase of pay of judicial officers must becommensurate with the increase in the pay of High Courtjudges. This principle has been accepted by this Court byapproving the recommendations of the SNJPC. Therefore, thereis no valid reason to depart from the principle applied byJPC that the pay of judicial officers should be higher whencompared to All India Service Officers of the correspondingrank. This principle has been approved by this Court in AIJA(2002) Thirdly, in All India Judges Association (II) v. Unionof India this court rejected the comparison of serviceconditions of the judiciary with that of the administrativeexecutive:

“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated inthe judgment under review while dealing with the samecontentions raised there. We cannot however, help observingthat the failure to realize the distinction between the judicialservice and the other services is at the bottom of the hostilitydisplayed by the review petitioners to the directions given inthe judgment. The judicial service is not service in the senseof ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As membersof the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power ofthe State. They are holders of public offices in the same wayas the members of the council of ministers and the membersof the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such asours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitutethe three pillars of the State, what is intended to be conveyedis that the three essential functions of the State are entrustedto the three organs of the State and each one of them in turnrepresents the authority of the State. However, those whoexercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Aand the Judges, and not the members of their staff whoimplement or assist in implementing their decisions. Thecouncil of ministers or the political executive is different fromthe secretarial staff or the administrative executive whichcarries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly,the Legislators are different from the legislative staff. So alsoBthe Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between thepolitical executive, the Legislators and the Judges and notbetween the Judges and the administrative executive. In somedemocracies like the USA, members of some State judiciariesare elected as much as the members of the legislature and theCheads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they maybe, represent the State and its authority unlike theadministrative executive or the members of the other services.The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placedon a par with the members of the judiciary, eitherconstitutionally or functionally.””

D

III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of theBasic Structure

30. This Court has repeatedly held that the independence of thejudiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.[15] However,Ethe pronouncements of the Court have been in the context of the HighCourt and the Supreme Court and not in the context of the DistrictJudiciary. The District Judiciary performs an important role in upholdingthe rule of law. As noted in the Review Order dated 05.04.2023:

“15. The District Courts and courts forming a part of the districtFjudiciary discharge a prominent role in preserving the rule oflaw. Public confidence in the judicial system sustains thecredibility of the judiciary. The district judiciary has asignificant role in generating and fostering public confidence.The standards of ethics and professionalism expected of judgesare more rigorous than those applied to other services/Gprofessions. Ensuring adequate emoluments, pension andproper working conditions for the members of the district 15 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441; Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Inre, (1998) 7 SCC 739; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India,H(2016) 5 SCC 1.

judiciary has an important bearing on the efficiency ofjudicial administration and the effective discharge of theunique role assigned to the judiciary.”

31. The independence of the District Judiciary must also be equallya part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Without impartial andindependent judges in the District Judiciary, Justice, a preambular goal[16]would remain illusory. The District Judiciary is, in most cases, also theCourt which is most accessible to the litigant. The Amicus Curiaesubmitted that on a single day, the District Judiciary handled nearly 11.3lakh cases. It was seen that during the period of the pandemic as well,the District Judiciary was yet efficient and undertook its functions toensure that justice is delivered in a timely manner. It is thus important torecognize that the District Judiciary is a vital part of the independentjudicial system, which is, in turn, part of the Basic Structure of theConstitution.

IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice EnsuresImplementation of Part III of the Constitution

32. Any interpretation of Part III of the Constitution would alsorequire that effective and speedy disposal of cases be done by anindependent District Judiciary. This Court has repeatedly held that theright of free and fair trial forms part of Article 14 and 21 of theConstitution.[17] For instance, in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan[(2016) 8 SCC 509, para 31], this Court recognized that “access to justice”inheres in Articles 14 and 21. This Court held:

“31. If “life” implies not only life in the physical sense but abundle of rights that makes life worth living, there is no juristicor other basis for holding that denial of “access to justice”will not affect the quality of human life so as to take accessto justice out of the purview of right to life guaranteedunder Article 21. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holdingthat access to justice is indeed a facet of right to lifeguaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. We need onlyadd that access to justice may as well be the facet of the right 16 The Preamble guarantees that “JUSTICE, social, economic and political;” shall besecured to all the citizens of India.

17 See: Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81,Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Registrar, Delhi High Court [(1996) 6 SCC 323, para16]; Mohd. Hussain v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2012) 9 SCC 408, para 1.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aguaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution whichguarantees equality before law and equal protection of lawsto not only citizens but non-citizens also…

… Absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacyof such mechanism, needless to say, is bound to prevent thoseBlooking for enforcement of their right to equality before lawsand equal protection of the laws from seeking redress andthereby negate the guarantee of equality before laws orequal protection of laws and reduce it to a mere teasingillusion.”

C33. The right of fair trial and access to justice, as contemplated bythis Court, is not limited to the physical access to a Court. The right mustalso include all the necessary prerequisites of a Court, i.e., theinfrastructure, and an unbiased, impartial, and independent judge. At thecost of repetition, for most litigants in this country, as the onlyphysicallyaccessible institution for accessing justice is the DistrictDJudiciary, the independence of district judiciary assumes even greatersignificance.

34. One may go to the extent to state that the rights of “access tojustice” and “fair trial” cannot be exercised by an individual without anindependent judiciary. Further, without fair and speedy trial, the remainingErights, including fundamental and constitutional rights will not be enforcedin a manner known to law. If these instrumental rights themselves arehindered, then all other rights within the Constitution would not beenforceable.

V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District JudiciaryFand Higher Judiciary

35. The essential function of the District Judiciary, as also thefunction of the High Courts and this Court is to administer justiceimpartially and independently. This Court in its Review Order observed:

“14. Fourthly, the argument that an uniform IoR would equatethe district courts with constitutional courts is erroneous. Auniform multiplier is used for a uniform increment in pay andnot for the purpose of uniform pay in itself. All Judges acrossthe hierarchy of courts discharge the same essential functionof adjudicating disputes impartially and independently.Thus, G

H

it would not be appropriate to apply graded IoR when SNJPChas chosen to uniformly apply the multiplier.”

36. Together, the Courts constitute the unified judicial systemperforming for the core and essential function of administering justice.To be truly unified both in form and in substance, there must be integrationin terms of pay, pension and other service conditions between the DistrictJudiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court. To this end, underArticle 125 and 221 of the Constitution, the salaries etc. payable to thejudges of the High Court and the Supreme Court are fixed by law asmade by Parliament. The salaries for judges of the High Court are thesame across the country by virtue of the High Court Judges (Salariesand Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

37. Given that in the hierarchy of the unified judicial system aJudge of the High Court is placed above a District Judge, it follows thata District Judge cannot have more pay more than a High Court judge.Therefore, the maximum ceiling of pay that a District Judge may earn isthe salary of a High Court judge which is fixed under the aforementionedstatute. Once the salary of the District Judge is pegged against the HighCourt judge, it thus follows that any increase in the salary of the judgesof the High Court must reflect in the same proportion to the judges inthe District Judiciary. In the Review Order, this Court observed:

“16. The legitimacy of the principle that the increase of payof the judicial officers must be commensurate with thequantum of increase in the pay of High Court judges hasbeen raised previously and stands judicially settled. Therefore,any objection to the IoR on the ground that it has to be lowerthan that adopted for increase in the pay of the judges of theHigh Court is without cogent basis.”

38. Having considered the constitutional foundations on the basisof which the recommendations of the SNJPC are to be considered, wewill now proceed to examine the recommendations with respect to pay,pension, gratuity etc.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY

39. We will first deal with the recommendation of SNJPC on paystructure. A summary of the relevant recommendations ofSNJPC onpay are tabulated hereinbelow:

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

A44.18 The Judges of the Family Courts in Maharashtra who belong to a separate cadre have to be extended the benefit of pay of District Judge (Selection Grade) and District Judge (Super Time Scale) in the same ratio as prescribed for regular District Judges. The High Court to propose the minimum age for grant of Selection Grade, if considered necessary. The Principal Judge Family Court (ex-cadre) to be allotted quarters preferentially, in General Pool BAccommodation. 44.19 Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Class)/Special Metropolitan Magistrates (dealing with petty criminal cases) shall get minimum remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month in addition to conveyance allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and to be suitably revised every five years. C5.1 ORDERS OFTHIS COURT ON SNJPCRECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY

40. This Court has subsequently passed three detailed orders dealingwith the objections of the States and the Union and rejected the same.The first is Order dated 27.07.2022,[18] the second is Order datedD18.01.2023 and the final one is Order dated 05.04.2023. In the first Order,this Court accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended bySNJPC. By Order dated 18.01.2023, this Court granted additional timeto some States to comply with the Order dated 27.07.2022. Thereafter,some States and the Union filed review petitions against the Order dated27.07.2022 passed by this Court. This Court dismissed the reviews onE05.04.2023.[19] Thus, most of the recommendations of the SNJPC on thepay structure have become final.

5.2 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ONPAY

F41. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pay areconsidered hereinbelow.

I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with theAll India Pattern (Recommendation 44.1)

42. As stated above, in India, the judiciary is unified. TheGdesignations of judges, therefore, ought to be uniform across the country.In this regard, the FNJPC suggested the following nomenclature to beadopted pan-India:

H

18Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 17.

19Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.

i.Civil Judge (Jr. Div);

ii. Civil Judge (Sr. Div);

iii. District Judge.

43. A thorough examination by the SNJPC revealed that thesedesignations have not been adopted in few states. It was stated by theCommission that the State of Kerala still designates its judges as Munsiffand ‘Subordinate Judge’. In the North-Eastern States too, it was seenthat there was some divergence of designation. Uniformity would requirethese to be amended in order to be brought under the same umbrella.Pertinently, this recommendation had been accepted in the FNJPC byvirtue of judgment in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India,(1993) 4 SCC 288.[20] We may only reiterate that this direction be followedby the High Courts and all High Courts amend their designations inconformity with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC.

44. It is also relevant to note that in light of the pay matrix suggestedby the SNJPC, without uniform designations, issues may arise in thefuture for fitment of the different designations which are used in thedifferent states. Such complications ought to be avoided by this Court.

45. This Court thus accepts the recommendation of theCommission. Consequently, the High Courts are directed to ensure thatthe designation of judicial officers is uniformly the same as mentioned inthe above paragraphs.

II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model(Recommendation 44.2, 44.3)

46. The SNJPC has recommended that the pay matrix model,which was adopted by the 7[th] Central Pay Commission be adopted forJudicial Officers as well. This is desirable as it simplifies the matter ofpay for judges. Notably, this Court has already accepted thisrecommendation by Order dated 27.07.2022.[21] This has been confirmedin Order dated 05.04.2023. As the recommendation of the SNJPC isonly to bring the pay structure in conformity with the 7[th] Central PayCommission, there cannot be any objection on these recommendations.Thus, it is directed that the pay structure of the Judicial Officers bemodified suitably, reflecting the recommendations suggested by theSNJPC.

20 All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 19 and 20.21Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 17.

BC

D

E

FG

H

AIII. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application-(Recommendations 44.444.6)

47. The Multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 has beensuggested by the SNJPC to be applied to all cadres of judicial officers.The objection of the States and the Union is that the IoR of 2.81 has notBbeen suggested by the 7[th] CPC to all cadres of officers. It is their saythat when the Central Pay Commission adopted a graduated fitmentfactor ranging from 2.57 for entry level officers to 2.81 for officers ofthe level of Secretary to the Government of India, the judicial officerscould not have been granted a uniform multiplier/IoR of 2.81.

C48. Their submission is erroneous because, as stated above, thepay of judicial officers is to be increased commensurate to the pay ofthe Judges of High Courts. When the judges of the High Courts weregranted a multiplier of 2.81, the judicial officers were also to be grantedthe same multiplier. This has been the precedent set by the previousJudicial Pay Commissions and endorsed by this Court repeatedly.[22]D

49. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that this Court hasalready rejected the objections of the States and the Union andconsequently accepted the multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 inOrder dated 27.07.2022[23] and Order dated 05.04.2023[24]. As stated above,the principled basis of the acceptance is that the pay of judicial officersEin the District Judiciary can only be based on the pay of Judges of theHigh Court. This is because the Judiciary is independent from theExecutive and as such, all aspects including pay cannot be based on thepay granted to the officers of the Executive Wing.

50. It is thus reiterated that the recommendation that the multiplier/Findex of rationalization as suggested by the SNJPC be accepted.Consequently, it is directed that the pay of the judicial officers be increasedas per the Table-I annexed to the Order dated 27.07.2022.

IV. Increments (Recommendation 44.7, 44.11)

51. The SNJPC did not recommend any change in the existingGsystem of accrual of increment once a year as per the date of appointment 22See Para 15.50 of FNJPC report and Para 4.8 of the Padmanabhan CommissionReport. Also see, the Orders of this Court in All India Judges Association v Union ofIndia (2002) 4 SCC 247 and All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14SCC 720 at para 6.

23 Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 15 - 16.H24Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.

or promotion or the date of financial upgradation. The sole change itsuggested was that judicial officers should have the benefit of incrementfalling due the next day following their retirement. The Commissionsuggested that this benefit of an additional increment shall be for thepurposes of pension only and shall be subject to a vertical ceiling of Rs.2,24,100/-.

52. An additional increment can be given to a retiring officer whenhe is not in service on the date of accrual. This is because the incrementis a benefit for the year of service already rendered. Therefore, the lastpay, for the purposes of calculation of pension should include theincrement payable to the judicial officer.

53. Three sets of decisions had been rendered by different HighCourts regarding this. The first view, which was taken by the High Courtsof Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Allahabad, is that when the incrementbecomes due the next day after retirement, the employee ought not tobe denied the benefit of the increment for the purposes of pay. Thesecond view, which was taken by the High Courts of Madras, Orissaand Delhi is that the increment would accrue to officers only for thepurpose of pension alone. The third view, taken by the Andhra Pradesh,Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts is that the increment cannotbe granted to the officers.

54. The law has now been settled by this Court in a recent judgmentDirector, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani.[25] This Court approved thejudgment of the High Court of Allahabad’s view in Nand Vijay Singh v.Union of India[26] it was held:

“24. … In the case of a government servant retiring on 30thof June the next day on which increment falls due/becomespayable looses significance and must give way to the right ofthe government servant to receive increment due to satisfactoryservices of a year so that the scheme is not construed in amanner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrinedin Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

55. In such circumstances, the recommendations of theCommission in so far as it notionally grants the increment for the purposesof pension is completely justified. As a consequence of the acceptance 25 (2023) SCC Online SC 401 at para 18.

26 Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2021) SCC Online All 1090 at para 24.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof the recommendation, the calculation of pension must notionally includethe increment for the purposes of calculation of pension. This will alsoobviate any confusion. It is therefore directed that the High Courts amendthe applicable rule to state that the increment which becomes due to thejudicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally includedin the calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the verticalBceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.

V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to PayMatrix System (Recommendations 44.8, 44.9, 44.10)

56. The Court notes that the Commission has recommended theCformula and method to ensure that the migration from the master payscale to the pay matrix system is smooth. The Commission has devisedthe follow fitment/migration formula:

“i. Multiply the existing pay by the factor of 2.81.

ii. The figure so arrived at to be located in Table-I, inDrelation to the Level applicable to the Officer (i.e., J1, J2etc.)

iii. Where there is an identical figure available in Table-Iat the corresponding stage of the relevant level, the newrevised pay shall be fixed at that stage.

E

iv. Where there is no identical figure available, the newrevised pay has to be fixed at the very next higher stage inthat level in Table-I.”

57. In order to make matters clear, the Commission has also givenillustrations so as to simplify the fitment/migration formula for the relevantFauthorities. These illustrations ought to be considered by the authoritieswhile encoding the rules for the migration to the pay matrix system.[27] Itmay be noted that the Commission has submitted a Corrigendum to itsReport in March 2021 which has removed certain arithmetical mistakesfrom the Fitment Table. This is reflected in Part III of the Report datedGMarch 2021.

58. It may be noted that a similar formula and illustrations havealso been devised for fixation of pay of judicial officers who werepromoted on or after 01.01.2016 in the following terms:

27See Paras 13.5 at p.75 – 80 and Para 13.8 at p.81 – 82 of the Report.H

“i. Identify the level and the basic pay in Table I on thedate of promotion.

ii. Add one increment in that level itself in terms of FR-22.

iii. The figure so arrived at or the next closest figure in thelevel to which s(he) is promoted will be the new pay onpromotion.”

The examples provided by the Commission also proceed thereafterto lend clarity to the formula for promotes as well.

59. While accepting this recommendation for fitment/migrationas amended by the Corrigendum dated March 2021, it is also noted thatthe examples must form part of the relevant rules that are required to beencoded by the High Courts, the States and the Union. Therefore, weaccept the recommendation and direct the authorities to implement thesame keeping in mind the examples that have been given by theCommission, as stated above.

VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016(Recommendation 44.12)

60. The 7[th] Central Pay Commission came into force from01.01.2016. However, the last pay revision of the judicial officers waswith effect from 01.01.2006. More than 17 years have passed since thejudicial officers have received a pay revision. Noting this, therecommendation must be accepted by this Court. Pertinently, this hasalready been noticed by this Court in its Order dated 27.07.2022.[28] Further,the previous Judicial Pay Commissions had also recommended revisionof pay with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively. Noobjection can therefore be made regarding the application of the paystructure from 01.01.2016. This recommendation thus merits acceptance.Thus, it is directed that the benefits of the recommendations as regardspay be given effect to with effect from 01.01.2016.

VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order dated27.07.2022 (Modification of Recommendation No.44.13)

61. While the Commission suggested that the arrears of pay begiven during the calendar year 2020, this Court after considering thesubmissions of the Union and the State that the payment of arrears at 28Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at Para 21.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aone go may not be possible and by Order dated 27.07.2022 directed thatthe payments be made in three separate installments. As per this Orderas well, the final installment was payable by 30.06.2023. States hadalready sought extension of time to complete payments in the first twoinstalments. Considering the grievances of the States, by Order dated18.01.2023, this Court directed:B

“All the States/Union Territories which have made paymentof only the first installment or the first two installments andthe States and Union Territories which have come up withapplications for extension of time, are permitted to makepayment of arrears, at least within the time indicated in thisCorder. The States and Union Territories which have not yetmade payment of the first installment, shall make payment ofthe first installment by 31.03.2023. These States and UnionTerritories, as well as those who have already made paymentof the first installment, shall make payment of the secondDinstallment by 30.04.2023. The third and final installmentshall be made by 30.06.2023.”

VIII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government(Recommendation 44.14)

62. The recommendation of the SNJPC is that DearnessEAllowance may be paid at the rate fixed by the Central Government. Itmay be noted that the Commission has found that the rates fixed by theCentral Government are normally accepted by the State across thecountry. The purpose of dearness allowance, as explained by this Courtin Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its WorkmenF(1969) 2 SCR 113, is “to neutralise a portion of the increase in thecost of living.” When the rates which are fixed by the CentralGovernment are followed by most of the States, the recommendation ofthe SNJPC is reasonable. This recommendation is also in the interestsof uniformity of service conditions of judicial officers across the country,which, as stated above, is a cardinal principle on the basis of which theGpresent proceedings are based. Notably, a fixed rate of DearnessAllowance would also ensure that there is no lag in the accrual of thedearness allowance to the judicial officers.

63. Various States such as West Bengal, Assam, Nagaland andManipur are agreeable to rates fixed by the Central Government. TheHStates of Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, and Mizoram have argued that their rates must be adopted. Other States have not specifically statedanything with regard of rates of DA. It is observed that that a uniformrate of DA would achieve the goals of uniformity as well as efficiency.In such circumstances, the recommendation deserves acceptance.

IX. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div)(Recommendation 44.15 (i))

64. The Commission suggested that the 1[st] Assured CareerProgression be given to the Civil Judges (Jr Div) be granted on the basisof relaxed norms of performance. At present, a Civil Judge (Jr Div)would be entitled to the first ACP only after completing 5 years of service.A Civil Judge (Jr Div) is normally in the process of learning the work inhis first two years. Assessment of the officer’s performance when thefirst two years are riddled with trainings and deputations cannot be donein a serious manner. This is especially so when, for the first two years,no real work output is expected out of the judicial officer. Therefore, theinability of the Officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or notsatisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of judicial careerneed not be viewed seriously, especially having regard to the objectivebehind the ACP.

65. Another aspect is that judicial officers serving in the cadre ofCivil Judge (Jr. Div.) have only two promotional avenues available tothem, i.e., Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and District Judge. Without anypromotional avenues, the stagnation in the service causes loss of moraleto judicial officers which has a direct bearing on their independence.

66. It may be noted that the Limited Competitive Examinationwhich has been introduced by virtue of this Hon’ble Court’s judgment inAll India Judges Association v. Union of India[29] only applies to thecadre of Civil Judges (Sr. Div.) to the cadre of District Judges. Thepercentage reserved for LCE was initially 25%. This was reduced to10% by All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India[30].

67. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India,relaxed the aforesaid conditions only for the Delhi Higher JudicialServices in so far as it permits candidates with experience of 10 years toappear for the Limited Competitive Examination for becoming DistrictJudges.[31] At the same time, it is noticed that the Maharashtra JudicialService Rules, 2008 envisages an additional method for promotion for 29All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 at para 28.

30All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170 (para 7-8).

31All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC 494.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACivil Judges (Jr Div) by conducting a separate Limited CompetitiveExamination for them to be promoted to the position of Civil Judges (SrDiv).[32] It may be noted that there is no rule for the participation of CivilJudge (Jr. Div.) in the Limited Competitive Examination to be recruitedas District Judge.

B68. As regards the relaxed norms which could apply for the 1[st]ACP, it is noted that the SNJPC has recommended that the scrutiny forthe grant of First ACP will be limited to ascertaining whether there isanything positively adverse such as there is any poor/unsatisfactoryperformance or there being an adverse report of serious nature leadingto the inference that the officer is unfit to have the benefit of the 1[st]CACP. A similar provision already exists in Rule 3(5) of the MaharashtraJudicial Services Rules, 2008. This Rule prescribes that for the 1[st] ACP,the ACR rating required is only ‘Average’ and for the 2[nd] ACP, theJudicial Officer needs to be rated ‘Good’ for five continuous years. Sucha rule is only an illustration. High Courts may devise other methods forDthese relaxed norms.

69. It is thus directed that the grant of 1[st] ACP to Civil Judge (JrDiv) be given on the basis of relaxed norms which may be devised bythe High Courts, with reference to the suggestions of the Commission.

X. Delay in Grant of ACP (Recommendation 44.15(ii))

E

70. A perusal of the Commission’s Report at para 19.4 and 19.5shows that, in many states, the grant of ACP scale is delayed. TheCommission found that in certain jurisdictions, even after completion ofmore than 10 years of service, ACP was not granted to Civil Judges (JrDiv) and Civil Judges (Sr Div). This is unpardonable. Stagnation of careersFof judicial officers due to administrative delays causes loss of moraleand enthusiasm in vital stages of their careers, where they are entitled tobe considered for career progression.

71. The SNJPC’s finding that the lack of timely preparation andscrutiny of ACR is the primary reason behind delay is concerning. ACRsGare bound to be done in a timely manner and without delay so as toensure that the whole judicial system is functioning in an efficient manner.Accordingly, the High Courts may be directed to ensure that the delay inmaking ACRs is avoided in the future.

32Rule 5, Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008.H

72. Separately, to avoid this delay in the future, the Commissionsuggested that the process of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 monthsin advance from the date on which the judicial officers will be completing5/10 years and the financial benefits should be paid to the judicial officerwithin a period of 6 months after the judicial officer steps into the 6[th]/11[th] year of Service. Therefore, the Commission recommended that ifgrant of ACP is delayed for every year, one additional increment shall begranted for every year of delay subject to the adjustment with the ACParrears.

73. The recommendations of the Commission are reasonable. Asstated above, delays ought to be avoided on the administrative side whichhave the effect of stagnating the career of a judicial officer. Thesuggestions of the Commission will bring about much needed efficiencyand perhaps, a standard operating procedure for the grant of ACP in atimely manner. Thus, the recommendation merits acceptance.

XI. Changes in Percentage of District Judges (SelectionGrade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale)(Recommendation 44.16)

74. The Commission has recommended the increase of percentageof district judges who will be entitled to District Judge (Selection Grade)and District Judge (Super Time Scale). The reasoning of the Commissionis that due to the limited percentage of District Judge (Super Time Scale)and District Judge (Selection Grade), many judges from larger statesare unable to reach higher posts before retirement even though theyhave spent considerable time in the District Judge Cadre. It also foundthat as of October, 2019 only 1515 judges out of a cadre strength of7382 district judges were getting the benefit of Selection Grade andSuper Time Scale.

75. The benefits of Super Time Scale and Selection Grade notreaching a majority of district judges prior to their retirement is a situationthat should be avoided. The recommendation of the Commission thatthe Selection grade and Super Time Scale posts should be increased by10% and 5% respectively merits acceptance. Essentially, this would entailthat the District Judges at Entry level shall be 50%, selection grade 35%and Super Time Scale – 15% of the total cadre strength of DistrictJudges.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

A76. The Recommendations 44.16 (ii) and (iii) are regarding theupgradation to be given to District Judges by applying the principle ofseniority-cum-merit and further that if the post remains or continues forthree years it shall form part of cadre strength. These recommendationsof the SNJPC may be considered at the appropriate stage as they do nothave a bearing on the issues of pay, which are being considered by thisBCourt at this stage.

XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges ofIndustrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (Recommendation44.19)

C77. Though Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, both statutorycourts created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947[33] are not presidedover by judicial officers, they are entitled to equal pay as district judgesbased on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Following this principle,this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar[34] and State ofMaharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn.[35] held that judicialDofficers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunal ought to be consideredon par with judicial officers. The recommendation of the Tribunal thatthe pay revision be extended to judges of the Industrial Tribunals/LabourCourts, thus merits acceptance as it is only an extension of the law laiddown by this Court.

E

XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra(Recommendation 44.18)

E

XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra(Recommendation 44.18)

78. The Commission noticed that the Judges in the Family Courtsin Maharashtra are recruited through a separate process and the officersform part of a separate cadre. At the same time, Rule 8 of the Judges ofFthe Family Courts (Recruitment and Service Conditions) MaharashtraRules, 1990 also provides that the judge shall draw pay and allowancesat par with the judges (Principal Judge, Additional Principal Judge andJudge respectively) of the City Civil Court, Bombay and at other placespay and allowances as admissible to the District Judge.

G

79. The recommendation of the Commission is that the Judges ofthe Family Court also be entitled to the benefit of Selection Grade and 33 Section 7 and 7A of the Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947 respectively.

34 State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC 219 at para 19.

35 State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688 at para20.

H

Super Time Scale as well. The Commission further recommends thatquarters also be given to them from the general pool of accommodation.

80. The recommendation of the SNJPC is in line with the sameprinciples mentioned above in as laid down by this Court in State ofKerala v. B. Renjith Kumar[36] and State of Maharashtra v.LabourLaw Practitioners’ Assn.[37] for Labour Courts. When equal work isdone by the judicial officers, their pay and conditions of service mustalso be equal. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission is accepted.

XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special JudicialMagistrates (Second Class) and Special MetropolitanMagistrates (Recommendation 44.19)

81. A reading of para 36 of the report of the Commission showsthat in some states, officials who have worked in the judiciary, retiredexecutive officials possessing law degree etc. are appointed as SpecialJudicial Magistrates under Sections 11 and 13 of the CrPC, 1973. TheCommission noted that in some states they are paid very meagreremuneration and consequently has recommended a minimum pay ofRs. 30,000 per month and a conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/-. TheCommission has further recommended that this benefit shall be givenfrom 01.04.2019.

82. The amicus has argued that even Rs. 30,000 is insufficienttoday and such a low amount might not meet the minimum wagerequirements in certain states. Considering that under Section 261, CrPC,1973 such Magistrates can try offences which are punishable with fineor imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, such Magistrates cannot beconsidered as discharging judicial functions that are incomparable toregular Magistrates. As such, their financial independence is as much apart of judicial independence as is for regular Magistrates. Thus, therecommendation of the Commission modified by fixing the remunerationat Rs. 45,000/- per month plus an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- asconveyance allowance.

83. For the purpose of convenience, the recommendations andtheir modifications/acceptance is tabulated below:

36 State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC 219 at para 19.

37 State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688 at para20.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITYAND AGE OF RETIREMENT ETC

84. We will now deal with the recommendations of SNJPC onPension, Gratuity etc. For the purposes of convenience, therecommendations are set out below:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

74SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.AAdditional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension 21.1 Additional quantum of family pension on completion of age of and at the rates specified as per Table in p.49, Vol. II Part-I 21.2 This benefit of additional pension shall be available to all eligible Bpensioners/familypensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016. 21.3 No recovery shall be effected from those who have availed the benefit of additional pension on completion of age of 65 or 70 years as per the extant orders of the some of the State Governments C21.4 The State Governments may also choose to continue to extend the prevailing benefits upto the age of 75 years to the retired Judicial officers as well. Gratuity8.1 Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Rule 50(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. D8.2 The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. 8.3 These recommendations shall be effective from 01.01.2016. 8.4 To the officers who have retired after 01.01.2016 and paid retirement gratuity as Eper pre-revised pay and the maximum limit at that time, the differential gratuity payable on account of revision of pay shall be paid subject to the revised maximum limit. 8.5 The death gratuity shall be paid as per table in p.52, Vol. II on the basis of length in service FRetirement Age of Judicial Officers No change in retirement age of 60 years recommended Financial Assistance in Case of Death 9.1 The benefit of family pension as per Rule 54(3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, as Gamended vide notification dated 19.09.2019 shall be extended to the family members. 9.2 The other benefits such as one time lumpsum grant, compassionate appointment, permission to stay in official quarters etc. already in force in the States shall continue to apply, in addition to death gratuity. H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A7. CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ONPENSION, GRATUITY ETC

85. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pensionare considered hereinbelow.

I.No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On orBAfter 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 39.1)

86. The Commission has not recommended any change in thecurrent percentage of pension, fixed at 50% of last drawn pay for pensionand 30% for last drawn pay for family pension. The FNJPC had alsorecommended this position and this Court had accepted it. Therefore,Cwhen no change is recommended, no real objections can be raisedregarding the recommendation.

II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be50% of the Last Drawn Pay

87. After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the One-Person Commission, the Commission recommended that for judicialDofficers who retired before 01.01.2016, the revised pension should be50% of the last drawn pay of the post held at the time of retirement.This is also unchanged in its formulation and thus remains the same.

III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix(Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4)E

88. As a result of the recommendations of the SNJPC on pay, thepensioners also will be equally benefitted. The recommendation of theCommission is that the multiplier of 2.81 will equally apply to pensionersas well. As a consequence thereof, the pensioners will also be fitted intothe table and pension will be paid to them on this basis.In other words, toFensure parity of pension between judicial officers who retired at thesame level but under different pay scales, the pension must be broughton par. After extensive analysis, the Commission has also included certainillustrations to make its recommendations clear. The illustrations lendclarity to the recommendation and thus ought to be read along with therecommendation.G

89. It may be noted that as with the recommendation on fitment inpay, the SNJPC has issued a corrigendum on fitment in its SupplementalReport dated March 2021. This Corrigendum corrects arithmeticalmistakes made in the original report. Therefore, the fitment table mustbe construed in accordance with the corrected table on fitment.

H

90. There is merit in the recommendation of the Commission.The revision of pay must also reflect in the revision of pension. Therefore,the multiplier which applies to pay must also apply to pension.Consequently, the pensioners must be therefore fitted into the samescheme in the pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted.

IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers whoRetired Prior to 01.01.1996 (Recommendation no. 39.5)

91. The Commission noted that due to a discrepancy in the reportof the One-Person Commission, the pension granted to judicial officerswho retired after 2006 was not being given in parity to those who retiredbefore 2006. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India,(2014) 14 SCC 444 (dated 08.10.2012) was apprised of the errorcommitted by the One-Person Commission and directed this to becorrected. However, the prayer in the application was limited to post-2006 retirees. In a second[38] and third round[39] of litigation, the SupremeCourt directed all the State Governments to follow its Order dated08.10.2012 and directed revision of pension for those who retired post-1996. By way of abundant caution, the Commission recommended thatthose States which have not granted this benefit to those who retiredbefore 1996, must be given the same benefit.

92. The recommendation of the Commission is only in furtheranceof parity. State Governments have, in the past, been directed to undertakethe consequential re-fixation before. However, if such consequential re-fixation has not been undertaken, the officers who had retired prior to1996, and who would have aged significantly would be discriminatedagainst. Such a situation ought to be avoided and thus the recommendationmerits acceptance. This Court directs this recommendation to beimplemented immediately and without delay.

V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculatingpension (Recommendation no. 39.6)

93. After considering the judgments rendered by this Court inGovernment of NCT Delhi v All India Young Lawyers Association(2009) 14 SCC 49, the Commission, recommended that the number of 38 Order dated 14.07.2016 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India in WP(C) No.1022/1989.

39 Order dated 13.03.2018 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India in WP(C) No.1022/1989.

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

Ayears of practice at the Bar subject to the maximum of weightage of 10years shall be given while calculating pension and other retiral benefits.This Court in Government of NCT Delhi reasoned that this would berequired as otherwise a direct recruit from the bar who becomes a DistrictJudge would not be entitled to full pension. The recommendation, beingthe implementation of the judgment of this Court, merits acceptance. ItBis accordingly ordered.

VI. Recommendations on Family Pension (RecommendationNos. 4.1 to 4.4)

94. As regards family pension, the Commission has notrecommended any change in the existing percentage, i.e., 30% of theClast drawn pay. Therefore, this recommendation, as such, does notwarrant any further deliberation as it is the mere continuation of theexisting regime. The recommendation is accepted.

95. At the same time, the Commission has recommended paymentof family pension @ 30% to the eligible family member after the deathDof the spouse. This benefit has been given in light of Rule 54 CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similar benefits to members of thecentral civil services. This recommendation is also thus accepted as ithas been granted to members of the central civil services.

96. Obviously, the quantum of family pension must be increasedEas per the same multiplier/index of rationalization applicable for pension.This is because the same factors which are applicable to pay and pensionleading to their increase also equally apply to family pension. TheCommission has also recommended the same. We accept therecommendation and direct that the quantum of family pension alsoworked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out.F97. The last recommendation is that on the income limit prescribedby States to be eligible for family pension. The minimum limit prescribedby the Commission was Rs. 30,000/-. This limit is reasonable but it mustbe left to the discretion of the States to prescribe a higher limit which ismore beneficial to the judicial officers. Thus, the recommendation isGaccepted.VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)

98. On account of the additional assistance required on increasingage, it has been the policy of the Central Government to grant additionalHquantum of pension. The Commission has recommended the payment of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75 years onwards atthe rates mentioned in the table on p.44 of the Report.

99. It is seen that different states have different ages for thegrant of additional quantum of pension and family pension. The 7[th] CPCsuggested the age of 80 years as the minimum. High Court and SupremeCourt judges also receive additional quantum of pension at the age of 80years. It was however argued by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate thatas District Judges retire at a younger age, the additional quantum ofpension should accrue to them at a younger age as well.

100. Given that many of the States granted this benefit from theage of 70 and the Commission recommended the grant of additionalquantum of pension from the age of 75. This reasoning of the Commissionmerits acceptance. If States have been granting more beneficial pensionrates, it cannot be denied to the judicial officers. Judicial Officers cannotbe left worse off than officers of the State. Therefore, this Court acceptsthis recommendation.

101. The Commission has further recommended that this benefitbe paid from 01.01.2016. As with the other similar recommendations forthe aspects of pay and pension, this recommendation is accepted.

102. The concern of the Commission, reflected in RecommendationNo.21.3, that recovery will be initiated against officers who have beengiven additional pension from the age of 65 or 70 is genuine. If judicialofficers have already been granted a more beneficial regime and aremoved to the regime suggested by the Commission and accepted by theCourt, no recovery ought to be made against them. Consequently, it isleft to the States to continue the benefits upto the age of 75 years aswell. These recommendations are accordingly accepted.

VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation Nos.21.1 to 21.4)

103. The first recommendation on Gratuity by the Commission isto bring the calculation of gratuity on par with Rule 50(1)(a) of the CentralCivil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There cannot be any disputeregarding this recommendation as it is to bring about uniformity inconditions of service. Therefore, this recommendation merits acceptanceby this Court.

104. The Commission further recommended that the maximumlimit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Ashall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. Thisrecommendation has also been made in accordance with the Report ofthe 7[th] CPC, and the purpose of the same is to ensure that the cost ofliving does not make the gratuity without purpose. Therefore, thisrecommendation also merits acceptance by the Court.

B105. The third recommendation is to make the recommendationseffective from 01.01.2016. This has now been settled by this Court beforeand has been reiterated in the present judgment as well. Therecommendations must come into force from 01.01.2016. Consequentially,those judicial officers who retired after 01.01.2016 must also benefitfrom the acceptance of the Report. Thus, the Commission has suggestedCthat the differential gratuity be paid to them subject to the revisedmaximum limit. This is merely consequential and is accepted by thisCourt. It is accordingly ordered.

106. The final recommendation made by the Commission on thesubject of gratuity is that death gratuity be paid on the same lines as theD7[th] CPC. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted as it is in linewith the already accepted principles laid down by this Court.

IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age

107. No change has been recommended by the Commission toEthe retirement age of judicial officers. No opinion, therefore, is expressedon this subject by this Court.

X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case ofDeath

108. The Commission has recommended that where a judicialFofficer dies while in service, the family pension and death cum retirementgratuity as per the applicable rules is payable to the spouse/dependent,of the deceased officer. The recommendation of the Commission is interms of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This recommendationis reasonable and in furtherance of the principle of uniformity acrossservices. Therefore, it merits acceptance by this Court.G

XI. Recommendations on Assistance to Pensioners

109. The Commission has made some well-consideredrecommendations on assistance to be given to pensioners and familypensioners. While they may merit acceptance, it is appropriate to considerHthem at a later stage as they do not require any change in principles or

A

amendments to any rules but are merely executive in nature. Therefore,this Court is of the opinion that the recommendations may be consideredat a later stage.

XII. Recommendations on Abolition of New Pension Scheme

110. This Court has been apprised of the recommendations madeby the Commission regarding the non-applicability of the New PensionScheme to judicial officers. However, given the objections raised to thisissue by a number of States, the issue may be dealt with separately afterhearing the states. Therefore, this recommendation too will be consideredat a later stage.

B

C

111. The resultant position on the recommendations is tabulatedbelow for convenience:

AFamily Pension 4.1 For family pensioners, no change is suggested in the Accepted existing percentage of family pension, that is, it shall be @30% of last drawn pay at the time of retirement of the Judicial officer 4.2 Family Pension @30% shall be paid to eligible family Accepted Bmember(s) as given in Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 at par with the spouse, after the death of the spouse. 4.3 The quantum of family pension shall be worked out in Accepted the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out. 4.4 Income limit, if any prescribed by any State in relation Accepted – with Cto dependent family members (other than the spouse) for liberty to States to being eligible to get family pension shall be not less than grant more Rs.30,000/- per month (rupees thirty thousand per beneficial position month). Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension 21.1 Additional quantum of family pension on completion of Accepted age of and at the rates specified as per Table in p.49, Vol. DII Part-I 21.2 This benefit of additional pension shall be available to Accepted all eligible pensioners/family pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016. 21.3 No recovery shall be effected from those who have Accepted availed the benefit of additional pension on completion Eof age of 65 or 70 years as per the extant orders of the some of the State Governments 21.4 The State Governments may also choose to continue to Accepted extend the prevailing benefits upto the age of 75 years to the retired Judicial officers as well. GratuityF8.1 Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Rule Accepted 50(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. 8.2 The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death Accepted gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. 8.3 These recommendations shall be effective from Accepted 01.01.2016. G8.4 To the officers who have retired after 01.01.2016 and Accepted paid retirement gratuity as per pre-revised pay and the maximum limit at that time, the differential gratuity payable on account of revision of pay shall be paid subject to the revised maximum limit. 8.5 The death gratuity shall be paid as per table in p.52, Vol. Accepted HII on the basis of length in service

H

A8. CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTIONS

112. Ultimately, the effect of the acceptance of therecommendations of this Court is that necessary amendments must becarried out in Service Rules of the Judicial Officers across all jurisdictions.It is thus directed that the High Courts and the competent authorities,Bwherever applicable, bring the rules in conformity with therecommendations accepted by this Court above within a period of 3months. Compliance affidavits be placed on record by the High Courts,the States and the Union within four months.

113. In the case of payment of arrears of pay, this Court had byCOrders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023 already directed that all arrearsof pay be cleared by 30.06.2023. In this regard, it is directedthatcompliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union Territoriesby 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited intothe accounts of the concerned officers.

D114. The revised rates of pension, which have been approved bythis Court, shall be payable from 01.07.2023. For the payment of arrearsof pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits as well,following the Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, it is directed that25% will be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and theremaining 50% by 31.12.2023.

E

115. List on 17.7.2023for further compliance on pay and pensionon which date this Court will take up the recommendations on allowances.

F

Divya Pandey

(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

Directions issued.

G

H