All India Judges Association vs Union of India & Ors.

Judiciary – District Judiciary – Principles evolved for judicial pay, pension and allowances – Held: A unified judiciary requires uniform designations and service conditions of judicial officers across the country – Judges are not employees of the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power – They are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in the executive – Parity cannot be claimed between staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicial wing – The independence of the judiciary requires that pay of judicial officers must be stand-alone and not compared to that of staff of the political executive or the legislature – Independence of the judiciary, which includes the District Judiciary, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution – Access to an independent judiciary enforces fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution – The essential function of all judicial officers in the District Judiciary and judges of the High Court and this Court is essentially the same – Principles discussed – Doctrine of inherent powers – Constitution of India – Article 125, 221.

Issuing directions, the Court

HELD:1.1 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

ON PAY

Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on payI.Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the All 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) suggested the following nomenclature to be adopted pan- India:i. Civil Judge (Jr. Div); ii. Civil Judge (Sr. Div); iii. District Judge. A thorough examination by the SNJPC revealed that these designations have not been adopted in few states. This recommendation had been accepted in the FNJPC by virtue of judgment in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India. This direction be followed by the High Courts and all High Courts amend their designations in conformity with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC. It is also relevant to note that in light of the pay matrix suggested by the SNJPC, without uniform designations, issues may arise in the future for fitment of the different designations which are used in the different states. 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 designation of judicial officers is uniformly the same. [Paras 4245][58-G; 59-A-E] II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model

As the recommendation of the SNJPC is only to bring the pay structure in conformity with the 7th Central Pay Commission, there cannot be any objection on these recommendations. Thus, it is directed that the pay structure of the Judicial Officers be modified suitably, reflecting the recommendations suggested by the SNJPC. [Para 46][59-F-G]

III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application The pay of judicial officers is to be increased commensurate to the pay of the Judges of High Courts. When the judges of the High Courts were granted a multiplier of 2.81, the judicial officers were also to be granted the same multiplier. This has been the precedent set by the previous Judicial Pay Commissions and endorsed by this Court repeatedly. This Court has already rejected the objections of the States and the Union and consequently accepted the multiplier/Index of Rationalization of

2.81 in Order dated 27.07.202223 and Order dated 05.04.202324. The multiplier/index of rationalization as suggested by the SNJPC be accepted. The pay of the judicial officers be increased as per the Table-I annexed to the Order dated 27.07.2022. [Paras 4850][60-C-F] IV. Increments

The recommendations of the Commission in so far as it notionally grants the increment for the purposes of pension is completely justified. As a consequence of the acceptance of the recommendation, the calculation of pension must notionally include the increment for the purposes of calculation of pension. The High Courts are directed to amend the applicable rule to state that the increment which becomes due to the judicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally included in the calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-. [Para 55][61-G; 62-A-B] V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay Matrix System

The Commission recommended the formula and method to ensure that the migration from the master pay scale to the pay matrix system is smooth. The Commission has devised the fitment/migration formula. While accepting this recommendation for fitment/migration as amended by the Corrigendum dated March 2021, the examples must form part of the relevant rules that are required to be encoded by the High Courts, the States and the Union. Therefore, the recommendation is accepted and the authorities are directed to implement the same keeping in mind the examples that have been given by the Commission. [Paras 56, 59][62-C; 63-C]

VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016 The 7th Central Pay Commission came into force from 01.01.2016. However, the last pay revision of the judicial officers was with effect from 01.01.2006. More than 17 years have passed since the judicial officers have received a pay revision. Noting this, the recommendation must be accepted by this Court. The benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be given effect to 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 Dearness Allowance may be paid at the rate fixed by the Central Government. A fixed rate of Dearness Allowance would also ensure that there is no lag in the accrual of the dearness allowance to the judicial officers. A uniform rate of DA would achieve the goals 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 Career Progression be given to the Civil Judges (Jr Div) be granted on the basis of relaxed norms of performance. The grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div) be given on the basis of relaxed norms which may be devised by the High Courts, with reference to the suggestions of the Commission. [Paras 64, 69][65-B; 66-D-E] (2002) 4 SCC 247 : [2002] 2 SCR 712; All India Judges Association (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170; All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC

494 – referred to.

IX. Delay in Grant of ACP

A perusal of the Commission’s Report shows that, in many states, the grant of ACP scale is delayed. The SNJPC’s finding that the lack of timely preparation and scrutiny of ACR is the primary reason behind delay is concerning. ACRs are bound to be done in a timely manner and without delay so as to ensure that the whole judicial system is functioning in an efficient manner. Accordingly, the High Courts may be directed to ensure that the delay in making ACRs is avoided in the future. To avoid this delay in the future, the Commission suggested that the process of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 months in advance from the date on which the judicial officers will be completing 5/10 years and the financial benefits should be paid to the judicial officer within a period of 6 months after the judicial officer steps into the 6th/11th year of Service. Therefore, the Commission recommended that if grant of ACP is delayed for every year, one additional increment shall be granted for every year of delay subject to the adjustment with the ACP arrears. The recommendations of the Commission are reasonable. Thus, the recommendation merits acceptance. [Paras 70-73][66-E-G; 67A-C] X. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts The recommendation of the Tribunal that the pay revision be extended to judges of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts merits acceptance as it is only an extension of the law laid down by this Court. [Para 77][68-CE] State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC

219 : [2008] 9 SCR 1078; State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners & Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688 : [1998] 1 SCR 793 – relied on.

XI. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra

The recommendation of the Commission is that the Judges of the Family Court also be entitled to the benefit of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale as well. The Commission further recommends that quarters also be given to them from the general pool of accommodation. The recommendation of the SNJPC is in line with the same principles as laid down by this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn. for Labour Courts. When equal work is done by the judicial officers, their pay and conditions of service must also be equal. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission is accepted. [Paras 79, 80][68-G; 69-A-B]

XII. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Class) and Special Metropolitan Magistrates The recommendations and their modifications/acceptance is tabulated.

1.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON

PENSION, GRATUITY ETC.

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

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

II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the Last Drawn Pay

After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the OnePerson Commission, the Commission recommended that for judicial officers who retired before 01.01.2016, the revised pension should be 50% 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. [Para 87][76-D]

III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix The recommendation of the Commission is that the multiplier of 2.81 will equally apply to pensioners as well as with the recommendation on fitment in pay, the SNJPC has issued a corrigendum on fitment in its Supplemental Report dated March 2021. This Corrigendum corrects arithmetical mistakes made in the original report. Therefore, the fitment table must be construed in accordance with the corrected table on fitment. The multiplier which applies to pay must also apply to pension. Consequently, the pensioners must be therefore fitted into the same scheme in the pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted. [Paras 88-90][76-E-F, G-H; 77-A]

IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who Retired Prior to 01.01.1996

The Commission noted that due to a discrepancy in the report of the One-Person Commission, the pension granted to judicial officers who retired after 2006 was not being given in parity to those who retired before 2006. The recommendation of the Commission is only in furtherance of parity. State Governments have, in the past, been directed to undertake the consequential re-fixation before. However, if such consequential re-fixation has not been undertaken, the officers who had retired prior to 1996, and who would have aged significantly would be discriminated against. Such a situation ought to be avoided and thus the recommendation merits acceptance. This recommendation is directed to be implemented immediately and without delay. [Paras 91, 92][77-B-C, E-F]

V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating pension

The recommendation, being the implementation of the judgment of this Court, merits acceptance. [Para 93][78-B]

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

VI. Recommendations on Family Pension

As regards family pension, the Commission has not recommended any change in the existing percentage, i.e., 30% of the last drawn pay. Therefore, this recommendation, as such, does not warrant any further deliberation as it is the mere continuation of the existing regime. The recommendation is accepted. At the same time, the Commission has recommended payment of family pension @ 30% to the eligible family member after the death of the spouse. This benefit has been given in light of Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similar benefits to members of the central civil services. This recommendation is also thus accepted as it has been granted to members of the central civil services. The quantum of family pension must be increased as per the same multiplier/index of rationalization applicable for pension. This is because the same factors which are applicable to pay and pension leading to their increase also equally apply to family pension. The Commission has also recommended the same. The recommendation is accepted and it is directed that the quantum of family pension also worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out. The last recommendation is that on the income limit prescribed by States to be eligible for family pension. The minimum limit prescribed by the Commission was Rs. 30,000/-. This limit is reasonable but it must be left to the discretion of the States to prescribe a higher limit which is more beneficial to the judicial officers. Thus, the recommendation is accepted. [Paras 94-97][78-C-G]

VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension

On account of the additional assistance required on increasing age, it has been the policy of the Central Government to grant additional quantum of pension. The Commission has recommended the payment of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75 years onwards. Given that many of the States granted this benefit from the age of 70 and the Commission recommended the grant of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75. This reasoning of the Commission merits acceptance. If States have been granting more beneficial pension rates, it cannot be denied to the judicial officers. Judicial Officers cannot be left worse off than officers of the State. Therefore, this Court accepts this recommendation. The Commission has further recommended that this benefit be paid from 01.01.2016. As with the other similar recommendations for the aspects of pay and pension, this recommendation is accepted. If judicial officers have already been granted a more beneficial regime and are moved to the regime suggested by the Commission and accepted by the Court, no recovery ought to be made against them. Consequently, it is left to the States to continue the benefits upto the age of 75 years as well. These recommendations are accordingly accepted. [Para 98, 100-102][78-H; 79-A, C-F]

VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity

The first recommendation on Gratuity by the Commission is to bring the calculation of gratuity on par with Rule 50(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There cannot be any dispute regarding this recommendation as it is to bring about uniformity in conditions of service. Therefore, this recommendation merits acceptance by this Court. The Commission further recommended that the maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. This recommendation has also been made in accordance with the Report of the 7th CPC, and the purpose of the same is to ensure that the cost of living does not make the gratuity without purpose. Therefore, this recommendation also merits acceptance by the Court. The third recommendation is to make the recommendations

effective

from

01.01.2016.

The

recommendations must come into force from 01.01.2016. Consequentially, those judicial officers who retired after 01.01.2016 must also benefit from the acceptance of the Report. Thus, the Commission has suggested that the differential gratuity be paid to them subject to the revised maximum limit. This is merely consequential and is accepted by this Court. The final recommendation made by the Commission on the subject of gratuity is that death gratuity be paid on the same lines as the 7th CPC. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted as it is in line 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 of Death

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

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 of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659; Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, In re, (1998) 7 SCC

739 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 1 : [2015] 13 SCR 1; Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401; Anita

Kushwaha 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 of Delhi (2012) 9 SCC 408 : [2012] 10 SCR 480; All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 720; Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2021) SCC Online All 1090; Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1969) 2 SCR 113; All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 444; All India 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 dated 13.03.2018 – referred to.

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