All India Judges Association And Others v. Union Of India And Others

Order

IA No. 5

1. Issue notice. In continuation of the order passed by this Court on 7-4-2010 (2010) 14 SCC 730, we pass the following order.

2. Many of the States, for example, the States of A.P, Gujarat, Orissa, Maharashtra and Goa had already submitted that they have no objection with the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the same. The States of U.P, Rajasthan, Orissa submitted that they would implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report with effect from 1-1-2006.

3. Some of the States, especially the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K stated that they have got serious financial constraint and some of the States have already implemented the Sixth Pay Commission and there exists disparity in the recommendations between the 6th Pay Commission and the pay scale suggested by Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which should be avoided. It is submitted that these States would be further financially burdened if present Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations are accepted. They also submitted that they should get assistance from the Union of India for implementation of these recommendations. Their contention is that the pay scales to be paid to the judicial officers would be much higher than what is being paid to other executives of the States. It was, therefore, suggested that so much of increase in pay scale be avoided, which is likely to become an eyesore.

4. The same plea was raised when this Court directed to implement Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. This Court observed in All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 which is as follows:

“22. The learned Solicitor General, however, submitted that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the Union of India should bear 50 per cent of the total expense was inconsistent with the constitutional set-up. Had there been an All-India Judicial Service, then the Union of India may have been under an obligation to bear the expense, but as the State Governments had not agreed to the establishment of the All-India Judicial Service and no legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the Central Government to bear 50 per cent of the expense on the judicial system. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the obligation to meet the expenses of the judicial service, except for the Supreme Court and the courts in the Union Territories, was on the State Governments. He contended that when allocation of funds between the Centre and the States takes place the expenses which the States are required to meet in connection with the administration of justice is a factor which is taken into consideration. The provision for devolution of funds from the Union to the States is either by assignment of taxes or distribution of taxes or by grants-in-aid. As and when the need arises, either the Finance Commission or the Union of India allocates more funds to the States.

23. It has not been disputed that at present the entire expense on the administration of justice in the States is incurred by the respective States. It is their responsibility and they discharge the same. Logically, if there is to be any increase in the expenditure on the judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the resources in such a way whereby they can meet the expenditure on the judiciary for discharging their constitutional obligations. Merely because there is an increase in the financial burden as a result of the Shetty Commission Report being accepted, there can be no ground for fastening liability on the Union of India when none exists at present. Accordingly, disagreeing on this point with Justice Shetty Commission recommendations, we direct that the entire expenditure on account of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, as accepted, be borne by the respective States. It is for the States to increase the court fee or to approach the Finance Commission or the Union of India for more allocation of funds. They can also mobilise their resources in order to meet the financial obligation. If such a need arises and the States approach the Financial Commission or the Union of India for allocation of more funds, we have no doubt that such a request shall be favourably considered.”

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions as advanced by some of the States cannot be accepted.

5. The States of West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh informed that they have implemented the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. There is some difference of opinion as regards certain allowances payable to the judicial officers, otherwise, they have fully implemented (sic recommendations of) Justice Padmanabhan Committee. The High Courts of these States should endeavour to iron out the creases and have discussions with the State Governments and should sort out the differences at the earliest. If there is any difficulty, it could be brought to the notice of this Court.

6. Most of the States have contended that they have implemented 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1-1-2006 but in some States they have implemented from 1-4-2010, therefore, they would not be in a position to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee (sic recommendations) with effect from 1-1-2006. We are unable to accept this contention. All the States are hereby directed to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations with effect from 1-1-2006. There should be uniformity and all the States should implement recommendations and shall raise the pay scale from 1-1-2006 and shall pay arrears of salary, if any. However, with an intention to give maximum benefits to the judicial officers, following modalities are worked out, with regard to payment of arrears of pay scales. 60% of the arrears be paid in cash spread over in two financial years and 40% be deposited in the provident fund account forthwith in the respective account of the judicial officers.

7. We reiterate that if in any State the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are more beneficial to the judicial officers, they will continue to be benefited to that extent. The State of Andhra Pradesh has already issued a notification accepting the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee Report. We make the A.P Government's Orders dated 1-5-2010, as a part of this order (marked as Annexure A) so that the same could be followed by other States also.

8. The Secretaries/Law Secretaries/Registrars/Registrar Generals of all the States/High Courts are present in this Court and their presence is dispensed with. Consequently, the IAS in respect of their presence are disposed of. We highly appreciate the cooperation rendered by these officers during the course of hearing.

9. Justice Padmanabhan Committee has made some recommendations regarding allowances. The respective States/High Courts are directed to submit their objections, if any, positively within eight weeks. This is, of course, in case they are not able to sort out the differences themselves.

10. List after eight weeks for directions regarding allowances and pensions.

Annexure A: A.P Government Notification dated 1-5-2001 accepting recommendations of Padmanabhan Committee Report, and made a part of this order of the Supreme Court vide para 7, above.

11.

“Government of Andhra Pradesh

Abstract

Public Services—Directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 7-4-2010 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 730—Recommendations of one-man Commission headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.)—Revision of pay scales in respect of Andhra Pradesh Judicial Officers w.e.f 1-1-2006—Orders—Issued.

Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department

GOMs No. 73

Dated: 1-5-2010

Read the following

1. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28-4-2009 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2011) 12 SCC 677.

2. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges Assn. (3) v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247.

3. Report of First National Judicial Pay Commission—Headed by Hon'ble Mr Justice K. Jagannadha Shetty—in November 1999.

4. Report submitted on 17-7-2009 by one-man Commission headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.) to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on determination of salary, pension, etc. to judicial officers and pensioners.

5. GOMs No. 60 Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department, dt. 7-5-2003.

6. GOMs No. 111 Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department, dt. 21-8-2007.

7. GOMs No. 120 Law (LW & J Courts.C1) Department, dt. 9-11-2004.

8. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7-4-2010 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 730.

Order

The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 28-4-2009 (2011) 12 SCC 677 vide reference first read above appointed one-man Commission headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.) to determine the pay scales of all the judicial officers working and retired throughout the country on the basis of the First National Judicial Pay Commission. The Commission submitted its report on 17-7-2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reference fourth read above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions to the Government for implementation of Justice E. Padmanabhan Commission Report under reference eighth read above.

2. The Government, in pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide reference eighth read above and in obedience thereof hereby accord sanction to implement the recommendations of Justice E. Padmanabhan Commission and accordingly order the following on the revised pay scales and fixation in the revised pay scales in respect of judicial officers of the State of Andhra Pradesh:

(a) Higher pay scales

(i) The revised master scale with effect from 1-1-2006 shall be as under:

Rs 27,700-770-33,090-920-40,450-1080-49,090-1230-58,930-1380-67,210-1540-76,450.

(ii) The revised pay for 1 to 44 stages of master pay scale and increments in the revised pay scale as on 1-1-2006 shall be as under:

Table I

Existing Revised Sl. No. Pay Increment Pay Annual increment 1. 9000 250 27,700 770 2. 9250 250 28,470 770 3. 9500 250 29,240 770 4. 9750 250 30,010 770 5. 10,000 250 30,780 770 6. 10,250 250 31,550 770 7. 10,500 250 32,320 770 8. 10,750 300 33,090 920 9. 11,050 300 34,010 920 10. 11,350 300 34,930 920 11. 11,650 300 35,850 920 12. 11,950 300 36,770 920 13. 12,250 300 37,690 920 14. 12,550 300 38,610 920 15. 12,850 300 39,530 920 16. 13,150 350 40,450 1080 17. 13,500 350 41,530 1080 18. 13,850 350 42,610 1080 19. 14,200 350 43,690 1080 20.. 14,550 350 44,770 1080 21. 14,900 350 45,850 1080 22. 15,250 350 46,930 1080 23. 15,600 350 48,010 1080 24. 15,950 400 49,090 1230 25. 16,350 400 50,320 1230 26. 16,750 400 51,550 1230 27. 17,150 400 52,780 1230 28. 17,550 400 54,010 1230 29. 17,950 400 55,240 1230 30. 18,350 400 56,470 1230 31. 18,750 400 57,700 1230 32. 19,150 450 58,930 1380 33. 19,600 450 60,310 1380 34. 20,050 450 61,690 1380 35. 20,500 450 63,070 1380 36. 20,950 450 64,450 1380 37. 21,400 450 65,830 1380 38. 21,850 500 67,210 1540 39. 22,350 500 68,750 1540 40. 22,850 500 70,290 1540 41. 23,350 500 71,830 1540 42. 23,850 500 73,370 1540 43. 24,350 500 74,910 1540 44. 24,850 76,450

(iii) The revised scales of pay of the posts as on 1-1-2006 shall be under:

Table II

Sl. No. Designation Existing scale of pay Revised scale of pay (I) (II) (III) (IV) 1. Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Entry level) Rs 9000-250-10,750-300-13,150-350-14,550 Rs 27,700-770-33,090-920-40,450-1080-44,770 2. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Stage I ACP scale Rs 10,750-300-13,150-350-14,900 Rs 33,090-920-40,450-1080-45,850 3. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Stage II ACP scale Rs 12,850-300-13,150-350-15,950-400-17,550 Rs 39,530-920-40,450-1080-49,090-1230-54,010 4. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (Entry level) Rs 12,850-300-13,150-350-15,950-400-17,550 Rs 39,530-920-40,450-1080-49,090-1230-54,010 5. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Stage I ACP scale Rs 14,200-350-15,950-400-18,350 Rs 43,690-1080-49,090-1230-56,470 6. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Stage II ACP scale Rs 16,750-400-19,150-450-20,500 Rs 51,550-1230-58,930-1380-63,070 7. District Judge (Entry level) Rs 16,750-400-19,150-450-20,500 Rs 51,550-1230-58,930-1380-63,070 8. District Judge (Selection grade) Rs 18,750-400-19,150-450-21,850-500-22,850 Rs 57,700-1230-58,930-1380-67,210-1540-70,290 9. District Judge (Super timescale) Rs 22,850-500-24,850 Rs 70,290-1540-76,450

(b) Date of effect

The revised pay scales shall come into force with effect from 1-1-2006. The salary in the revised pay scales shall be paid in cash for the month of May 2010 payable in June 2010.

(c) Fitment in the revised pay scales

(i) The pay of judicial officers in the revised pay scales shall be fixed as under:

The existing pay of the judicial officer as on 1-1-2006 shall be revised and fixed in the revised scales of pay at the corresponding Stages 1 to 44 in the master pay scale as shown in Table I. There shall not be any fitment or fixation of pay by granting any increment or additional weightage while fixing the pay as above in the revised pay scale.

(ii) The next increment of a judicial officer, whose pay in the revised pay scales is fixed with effect from 1-1-2006 as above, shall be on the date on which he would have drawn his increment had he continued in the existing scale of pay.

(d) Dearness allowance/HRA/CCA

Orders in respect of DA/HRA and CCA will be issued separately.

(e) Payment of arrears

(i) The arrears of salary including differential amounts of dearness allowances, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowances from 1-1-2006 to 30-4-2010 shall be credited to the respective general provident fund accounts of the judicial officers. In respect of those judicial officers who do not have general provident fund accounts, the arrears shall be credited to the compulsory saving fund. The arrears of salary in respect of judicial officers who retired after 1-1-2006 shall be paid in cash.

(ii) The drawing and disbursing officers concerned are directed to credit the arrears to the general provident fund accounts/compulsory saving fund after deducting the income tax payable on the arrears.

(f) Assured Career Progression Scheme

The Assured Career Progression Scheme sanctioned by the First National Judicial Pay Commission and implemented by the Government in the orders seventh read above shall be continued. The assured career progression scales are revised as mentioned below in Table III with effect from 1-1-2006:

Table III

Sl. No. Designation Existing ACP scale of pay Revised ACP scale (I) (II) (III) (IV) 1. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Stage I ACP scale Rs 10,750-300-13,150-350-14,900 Rs 33,090-920-40,450-1080-45,850 after 5 years of continuous service from the date of entry. 2. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Stage II ACP scale Rs 12,850-300-13,150-350-15,950-400-17,550 Rs 39,530-920-40,450-1080-49,090-1230-54,010 after completion of another 5 years of continuous service. 3. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Stage I ACP scale Rs 14,200-350-15,950-400-18,350 Rs 43,690-1080-49,090-1230-56,470 after completion of 5 years of continuous service. 4. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Stage II ACP scale Rs 16,750-400-19,150-450-20,500 Rs 51,550-1230-58,930-1380-63,070 after completion of another 5 years of continuous service. 5. District Judge (Selection grade) Rs 18,750-400-19,150-450-21,850-500-22,850 Rs 57,700-1230-58,930-1380-67,210-1540-70,290 on merit-cum-seniority to available 25% of the cadre posts to those officers who have put in not less than 5 years of continuous service in the cadre.

6. District Judge (Super timescale) Rs 22,850-500-24,850 Rs 70,290-1540-76,450 on merit-cum-seniority to available 10% of the selection grade to those officers who have put in not less than 3 years of continuous service as selection grade District Judge.

3. This order issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their UO No. 12555-A/158.A1/PC.I/2010, dated 1-5-2010.

4. This order is available on the internet and can be accessed at the address .

(By Order and in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh)

R. Ramachandra Reddy,

Secretary to Government.”

Court Masters