Supreme Court of India
All India Judges Association vs Union Of India . on 19 May, 2023
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643/2015
All India Judges Association … Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6471-6473/2020
With
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 711/2022, 36/2023, 37/2023, 38/2023, 39/2023, 40/2023,
848/2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643/2015
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2023.05.19
16:44:42 IST
Reason:
1
JUDGMENT
INDEX
2. The SNJPC’s Report and the Orders of this Court.........................6
3. Submissions of Counsel.............................................................8
4. Principles Evolved for Judicial Pay, Pension and Allowances.......11
I. Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions.....................11
II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political Executive. .12
III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of the Basic
Structure.................................................................................... 15
IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice Ensures
Implementation of Part III of the Constitution...............................16
V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District Judiciary and Higher
Judiciary..................................................................................... 17
V.0 Recommendations on pay......................................................18
V.1 Orders of this Court on SNJPC Recommendations on Pay.........21
V.2 Consideration of Recommendations on Pay.............................22
I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the All India
Pattern (Recommendation 44.1)..................................................22
II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model (Recommendation
44.2, 44.3).................................................................................. 23
III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application (Recommendations
44.4-44.6)..................................................................................23
IV. Increments (Recommendation 44.7, 44.11)..............................24
V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay Matrix
System (Recommendations 44.8, 44.9, 44.10)..............................25
2
VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016
(Recommendation 44.12)............................................................27
VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order dated 27.07.2022
(Modification of Recommendation No.44.13)................................27
VIII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government
(Recommendation 44.14)............................................................28
IX. Grant of 1st 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 District Judges (Selection Grade) and
District Judges (Super Time Scale) (Recommendation 44.16).........31
XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of Industrial
Tribunals/Labour Courts (Recommendation 44.19)........................32
XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra (Recommendation
44.18)........................................................................................32
XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial Magistrates (Second
Class) and Special Metropolitan Magistrates (Recommendation
44.19)........................................................................................33
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITY AND AGE OF
RETIREMENT ETC.........................................................................37
7. Considerations of Recommendations on Pension, Gratuity etc. . .40
I. No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On or After
01.01.2016 (Recommendation 39.1).............................................41
II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the
Last Drawn Pay........................................................................... 41
III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix
(Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4).................................................41
3
IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who Retired Prior to
01.01.1996 (Recommendation no. 39.5).......................................42
V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating pension
(Recommendation no. 39.6).........................................................42
VI. Recommendations on Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 4.1
to 4.4)........................................................................................ 43
VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/Family
Pension (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)...............................44
VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to
21.4).......................................................................................... 45
IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age.....................................45
X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of Death......45
XI. Recommendations on Assistance to Pensioners.......................46
XII. Recommendations on Abolition of New Pension Scheme..........46
8. Consequential Directions.........................................................50
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J
1. INTRODUCTION TO PAY COMMISSIONS
4
1. The District Judiciary1 is the backbone of the judicial system. Vital to the judicial system is
the independence of the judicial officers serving in the District Judiciary. To secure their
impartiality, it is important to ensure their financial security and economic independence.
To this end, at the instance of the All India Judges Association, this Court, in 1993 found
the need to state that there must be a Judicial Pay Commission, separate and independent
from the Executive in order to ensure that the system of checks and balances are in place,
and the Judiciary has a say in their pay and service conditions. 2
2. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the First National Judicial Pay Commission
(“FNJPC”) was constituted by the Government of India by Resolution dated 21.03.1996.
The FNJPC, headed by Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, submitted a comprehensive report
on 11.11.1999. This comprehensive report contained recommendations on pay, pension
and allowances as well as other service conditions pertaining to the district judiciary.
After prolonged proceedings, on 21.03.2002, this Court approved the recommendations
of the FNJPC pertaining to emoluments with certain modifications relating to
allowances.3 Notably, the recommendations were accepted with effect from 01.01.1996.
This was because the employees of the Central Government were given the benefits of
the 5th Central Pay Commission from that date.
3. Within the next few years, the Central Government appointed the 6 th Central Pay
Commission, and the Commission made its recommendations which were accepted from
01.01.2006. To ensure that the District Judiciary does not lag behind, this Court once
again stepped in at the instance of the very same All India Judges Association. This Court
1
No 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 any other person in the
exercise of her jurisdiction but also is disrespectful to the constitutional position of a District
Judge. Our Constitution recognizes and protects a District Judge as a vital cog in the judicial
system. Respect ought to be accorded to this institution and its 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.
5
appointed a One-Person Commission headed by Justice E Padmanabhan (Retd Judge of
the High Court of Madras) by Order dated 28.04.2009. The One-Person Commission
once again submitted a report, which was accepted by this Court by Order dated
20.04.2010.4 The revised pay scales, which are currently in force, as recommended by
this Commission, were made effective from 01.01.2006.
2. THE SNJPC’S REPORT AND THE ORDERS OF THIS COURT
4. Ten years later, the 7th Central Pay Commission submitted its report and its
recommendations were accepted by the Central Government with effect from 01.01.2016.
Correspondingly, in the present writ petition, once again at the instance of the All India
Judges Association, this Court has been called upon to intervene and update/upgrade the
service 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 headed by Justice P.V. Reddi (Retd.) as its Chairman
with Senior Advocate R Basant (Former Judge) as its Member 5. Pursuant to the order of
this Hon’ble Court, the Government of India, by its Resolution dated 10.11.2017 6,
constituted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (“Commission/SNJPC”). As
per the Resolution, the terms of reference of the Commission are as follows:
(a) To evolve the principles which should govern the structure of
pay and other emoluments of judicial officers belonging to the
subordinate judiciary all over the country.
(b) To examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions
of service of judicial officers in the States and UTs taking into
account the total packet of benefits available to them and make
suitable recommendations including post-retirement benefits such
as pension, etc. having regard among other relevant factors, to the
existing relativities in the pay structure between the officers
belonging to subordinate judicial services vis-à-vis other civil
servants and mechanism for redressal of grievances in this regard.
(c) To examine the work methods and work environment as also the
variety of allowance and benefits in kind that are available to
judicial officers in addition to pay and to suggest rationalisation
4
All India Judges Association (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170.
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 Department of Justice.
6
and simplification thereof with a view to promoting efficiency in
judicial administration, optimising the size of judiciary, etc. and to
remove anomalies created in implementation of earlier
recommendations.
(d) To consider and recommend such interim relief as it considers
just and proper to all categories of judicial officers of all the
States/Union Territories. The interim relief, if recommended, shall
have to be fully adjusted against and included in the package
which may become admissible to the judicial officers on the final
recommendations of the Commission.
(e) To recommend the mechanism for setting up of a permanent
mechanism to review the pay and service conditions of members of
subordinate judiciary periodically by an independent commission
exclusively constituted for the purpose and the composition of such
commission should reflect adequate representation on behalf of the
judiciary.
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, Visakhapatnam and Srinagar where long deliberations took
place with the representatives of the All India Judges’ Association, All India Retired
Judges’ Association, State Associations, officials of the Registry and deputed officers of
High Courts and senior government officers. A perusal of the Report indicates that the
Commission has analyzed the representations from various sources and periodically
consulted with several experts while preparing working sheets and calculations.
7. After wide consultation, the Commission realized a need for interim relief to be granted to
judicial officers as their pay had not been increased for more than 10 years. Thus, they
submitted a Report on Interim Relief to this Court 09.03.2018. Considering that the
judicial officers were without updated/upgraded pay, this Court, by order dated
27.03.2018, directed the States and the Union of India to implement the
recommendations of the Commission with regard to interim relief.
8. Subsequently, on 29.01.2020, the Commission submitted its Final Report to this Court. The
Report has recommendations which cover Pay Structure (Volume I), Pension and Family
Pension (Volume III) and Allowances (Volume IV). A separate part of the report viz.,
7
Part II deals with the issue of establishing a permanent mechanism to determine subjects
of service conditions of the District Judiciary.
9. This Court took cognizance of the Report on 28.02.2020. For the assistance of the Court,
amici curiae were appointed. The States and the Union of India were directed to file their
objections, if any, to the Report. The Court observed that over the years, the primary
objection to the implementation of the various directions concerning the service
conditions of the district judiciary is the alleged paucity of financial resources, and
rejected this objection even before the States could raise it.
3. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
10. The Amicus Curiae, K Parameshwar placed the recommendations of the Commission and
its reasoning before this Court. Detailed notes of submissions have been filed by the
amicus curiae tabulating the recommendations and supplementing the same with
additional reasoning. He also detailed the objections put forward by the States and the
Union and rebutted them with clarity.
11. The Amicus Curiae also laid stress on the principles on which the recommendations of
the Commission draw their strength. He broadly suggested five principles for the
consideration of the Court. Firstly, he submitted that the independence of the district
judiciary is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. He stated that the judgments of
the Court, thus far, have recognized the principle of independence of judiciary only in the
context of the High Courts and the Supreme Court and submitted that this principle ought
to equally apply to the District Judiciary.
12. He then submitted that the principle of independence of the judiciary is an integral part of
Part III of the Constitution, as it ensures a guarantee to a fair trial. He argued that
therefore, the independence of the judiciary must be seen as a guarantee under Article 21
of the Constitution.
13. The third principle, in his submission, was that the doctrine of inherent powers, as
noticed by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 and
suggested by the Report of the Task Force on Judicial Impact Assessment (chaired by
8
Justice (Retd) M Jagannadha Rao) would require the Judiciary to compel payment of
reasonable sums of money to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. To
this end, he also relied on Article 50 of the Constitution which mandates that “The State
shall take steps to separate the 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 equivalence of core judicial function between
Judicial Officers in the District Judiciary and the Judges of the High Court. Therefore, he
submitted that the increase in pay of the High Court judges must equally reflect in the
increase of pay of judicial officers of the District Judiciary.
15. Lastly, he submitted that in a unified judicial system, the service conditions, designations
etc. must be uniform across the country. He relied 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
FNJPC and SNJPC to contend that the uniformity must be maintained across the country
in terms of pay and designation of the District Judiciary.
16. The Petitioners, i.e., the All India Judges Association were represented by Gourab
Banerji, Senior Advocate. He supported the Report of the SNJPC and supported the
arguments made by the amicus curiae. He also brought to the attention of this Court a
recent decision in Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401 to
defend the recommendation of the Commission on the accrual of last increment for the
purposes of pension. He also sought to support the recommendation of the Commission
on additional quantum of pension to be given from the age of 75 years by contending that
the same is not only reasonable but is also already given by a number of States from an
even younger age. In this regard, he also submitted that the age of retirement of district
judges is lower than that of High Court and Supreme Court judges and therefore, they
must be entitled to retiral benefits at a younger age.
17. The arguments on behalf of the All India Retired Judges Association were put forward by
V Giri, Senior Advocate. While supporting the contentions made by the Amicus Curiae
7
Hereinafter, “Review Order”.
9
as well as Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate, he reiterated the need for an urgent
implementation of the Report of the SNJPC, especially in respect of pension 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 Uttar Pradesh. He was also supplemented by Amit
Anand Tiwari, AAG for Tamil 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 for the 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 be applied to the District
Judiciary across the cadres. It is their argument that the 7 th CPC recommended a graded
pay increase across different cadres of the employees of the Central Government and
therefore, the same has to be applied even for the judiciary. Thereafter, they once again
argued that the States do not have sufficient financial resources to meet the increase in
pay as suggested by the SNJPC. As regards the recommendation on increment to be
accrued for the purposes of pension to the judicial officer in spite of her retirement, they
contended that since the applicable Rules in their State do not provide for such accrual
for Government Employees, the same cannot be given to judicial officers. The States also
opposed the grant of retirement gratuity as suggested by the SNJPC. They argued that
their State Rules which are prevalent provide for a uniform rate across cadres and
services in the State and therefore, the recommendation cannot be accepted by them.
Lastly, they contended that the minimum eligibility for Family Pension must be less than
Rs. 30,000, as suggested by the Commission.
10
20. Before considering the recommendations of the SNJPC on pay, pension, gratuity, age of
retirement etc., it is necessary to consider certain principles concerning judiciary that
have a direct bearing on our decision on the recommendations.
4. PRINCIPLES EVOLVED FOR JUDICIAL PAY, PENSION AND ALLOWANCES
21. This Court has dealt with three different Judicial Pay Commission and has evolved
certain principles, which form the underpinning of judicial pay, pension and allowances.
The first principle is that a unified judiciary requires uniform designations and service
conditions of judicial officers across the country. The second principle is that 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. The third
principle is that the independence of the judiciary, which includes the District Judiciary,
is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The fourth principle is that the access to
an independent judiciary enforces fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution. The fifth principle is that the essential function of all judicial officers in the
District Judiciary and judges of the High Court and this Court is essentially the same.
I. Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions
22. India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of the Constitution. A unified judiciary
necessarily entails that the service conditions of judges of one state are equivalent to
similar posts of judges of other states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to
ensure that the judicial system is uniform, effective and efficient in its functioning.
Efficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacity to be provided
with the right incentives and promotion opportunities to maintain the high level of
functioning of the judiciary.
23. This Court in All India Judges Association (II)8 has noted the position of law and
observed that uniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are
unavoidable necessary consequences. It was held:
“14. … Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unified
institution judicially though not administratively. Hence uniform
8
All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 14.
11
designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are
unavoidable necessary consequences. The further directions
given, therefore, should not be looked upon as an encroachment on
the powers of the executive and the legislature to determine the
service conditions of the judiciary. They are directions to perform
the long overdue obligatory duties.”
II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political Executive
24. Separation of powers demands that the officers of the Judiciary be treated separately and
distinct from the staff of the legislative and executive wings. It must be remembered the
judges are not employees of the State but are holders of public office who wield
sovereign judicial power. In that sense, they are only comparable to members of the
legislature and ministers in the executive. Parity, thus, cannot be claimed between staff of
the legislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicial wing. This Court in
All India Judges' Assn. (II) v. Union of India,9 explained the distinction and held that
those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges, and
not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their decisions.
Thus, there cannot be any objection that judicial officers receive pay which is not at par
with executive staff. In this context, it may also be remembered that Article 50 of the
Constitution directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the Executive.
25. This distinction is also important because judicial independence from the executive and
the legislature requires the judiciary to have a say in matters of their finances. This Court
has previously noted that theoretically, allowing the Executive to decide the pay of the
judiciary may lead to unintended consequences. 10 Therefore, to secure true independence
of the judiciary, this Court has recognized that the pay of judicial officers is separate and
distinct from the pay of staff of other wings of the State. This, it may be noted, is nothing
but an articulation of the doctrine of inherent powers. This doctrine mandates that the
9
All India Judges' Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 7.
10
In All India Judges' Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 10: “It would be
against the spirit of the Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in that behalf, for
theoretically it would not be impossible for the executive or the legislature to turn and twist the
tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a consequence would be against one of the
seminal mandates of the Constitution, namely, to maintain the independence of the judiciary.”
12
judiciary must possess the inherent power to “compel payment of those sums of money
which are reasonable and necessary to carry out its mandated responsibilities, and its
powers and duties to administer justice.”11 This doctrine is only the logical conclusion of
separation of powers and ensures that the independence of the judiciary is secured.
26. The submission of the States that there is a paucity of financial resources must be
examined from this aspect of the matter. The States and the Union have repeatedly stated
that the burden on the financial resources of the States/Union due to the Report of the
SNJPC is significant and therefore the Report cannot be implemented. Without the
doctrine of inherent powers, any de-funding of the Judiciary cannot be repelled.
27. Apart from this, Judicial Officers have been working without a pay revision for nearly 15
years. A pay revision has been recommended in accordance with the law laid down by
this Court and a report submitted by a Judicial Pay Commission after considering this
very objection. This Court has also examined this issue of paucity of financial resources
on at least three occasions in these very proceedings. In the Order dated 28.02.2020,
which took cognizance of the Report of the SNJPC, this Court stated that it hoped that
“the same objections, which have been rejected by this Court in All India Judges
Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, will not be re-agitated. The Court in the
aforesaid judgment observed that compared to the other plan and non-plan expenditures,
the financial burden caused on account of the directions given therein are negligible.” 12
However, the States and 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 7th Central Pay Commission, which was implemented from
01.01.2016, judicial officers have not received any similar benefit. Thus, the Court held
that “there is a need to at least implement the revised pay structure immediately
so as to alleviate the sufferings of the judicial officers.”13 The Court, after considering the
11
Commonwealth ex rel Carroll vs. Tate, 274 A.2d. 193. Approved by this Court in Brij Mohan
Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 at para 110 – 111.
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.
13
objections of the Union and the State rejected the same and accepted the revision of pay
structure as recommended by the SNJPC. Aggrieved by the acceptance of the Report, the
Union filed a review petition before this Court. This Court by Order dated 05.04.2023
dismissed the review petitions and found that the financial implications cannot be
considered as excessive in view of the information given by the SNJPC. 14 Still, the States
and the Union have raised this objection after its express rejection twice over. The
rejection of their objection is also reiterated. Judicial Officers cannot be left in the lurch
for prolonged periods of time without a revision of pay on an alleged paucity of financial
resources.
29. This Court in its Review Order dated 05.04.2023 has explained this position in the
following words:
“4. In view of the above discussion, the issue is whether there is any
compelling need to reduce the quantum of increase proposed by
applying a lower multiplier so as to marginally reduce the gap
between entry level IAS officers (in Junior and Senior time scales) and
Judicial Officers at the first two levels (Civil Judge, Junior and Senior
Divisions). Such an exercise is not warranted for more than one
reason. Firstly, the initial starting pay must be such as to offer an
incentive to talented youngsters to join judicial service. Secondly, the
application of a multiplier/ factor less than 2.81 would result in a
deviation from the principle adopted by SNJPC that the extent of
increase of pay of judicial officers must be commensurate with the
increase in the pay of High Court judges. This principle has been
accepted by this Court by approving the recommendations of the
SNJPC. Therefore, there is no valid reason to depart from the
principle applied by JPC that the pay of judicial officers should be
higher when compared to All India Service Officers of the
corresponding rank. This principle has been approved by this Court in
AIJA (2002) Thirdly, in All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of
India this court rejected the comparison of service conditions of the
judiciary with that of the administrative executive:
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the
judgment under review while dealing with the same contentions raised
there. We cannot however, help observing that the failure to realize
the distinction between the judicial service and the other services is at
the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners to the
14
Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.
14
directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in
the sense of ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As members
of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the
State. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the
members of the council of ministers and the members of the
legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the
executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars
of the State, what is intended to be conveyed is that the three essential
functions of the State are entrusted to the three organs of the State and
each one of them in turn represents the authority of the State.
However, those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the
Legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who
implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The council of
ministers or the political executive is different from the secretarial
staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of
the political executive. Similarly, the Legislators are different from the
legislative staff. So also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity
is between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and
not between the Judges and the administrative executive. In some
democracies like the USA, members of some State judiciaries are
elected as much as the members of the legislature and the heads of the
State. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State
and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of
the other services. The members of the other services, therefore,
cannot be placed on a par with the members of the judiciary, either
constitutionally or functionally.””
III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of the Basic Structure
30. This Court has repeatedly held that the independence of the judiciary is part of the basic
structure of the Constitution.15 However, the pronouncements of the Court have been in
the context of the High Court and the Supreme Court and not in the context of the District
Judiciary. The District Judiciary performs an important role in upholding the rule of law.
As noted in the Review Order dated 05.04.2023:
“15. The District Courts and courts forming a part of the district
judiciary discharge a prominent role in preserving the rule of law.
Public confidence in the judicial system sustains the credibility of
the judiciary. The district judiciary has a significant role in
generating and fostering public confidence. The standards of ethics
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, In re, (1998) 7 SCC 739;
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1.
15
and professionalism expected of judges are more rigorous than
those applied to other services/professions. Ensuring adequate
emoluments, pension and proper working conditions for the
members of the district judiciary has an important bearing on the
efficiency of judicial administration and the effective discharge of
the unique role assigned to the judiciary.”
31. The independence of the District Judiciary must also be equally a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. Without impartial and independent judges in the District
Judiciary, Justice, a preambular goal16 would remain illusory. The District Judiciary is, in
most cases, also the Court which is most accessible to the litigant. The Amicus Curiae
submitted that on a single day, the District Judiciary handled nearly 11.3 lakh cases. It
was seen that during the period of the pandemic as well, the District Judiciary was yet
efficient and undertook its functions to ensure that justice is delivered in a timely manner.
It is thus important to recognize that the District Judiciary is a vital part of the
independent judicial system, which is, in turn, part of the Basic Structure of the
Constitution.
IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice Ensures Implementation of
Part III of the Constitution
32. Any interpretation of Part III of the Constitution would also require that effective and
speedy disposal of cases be done by an independent District Judiciary. This Court has
repeatedly held that the right of free and fair trial forms part of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.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 a bundle
of rights that makes life worth living, there is no juristic or other
basis for holding that denial of “access to justice” will not affect
the quality of human life so as to take access to justice out of the
16
The Preamble guarantees that “JUSTICE, social, economic and political;” shall be secured 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, para 16]; Mohd. Hussain v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2012) 9 SCC 408, para 1.
16
purview of right to life guaranteed under Article 21. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in holding that access to justice is indeed a
facet of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. We need only add that access to justice may as well
be the facet of the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution which guarantees equality before law and equal
protection of laws to not only citizens but non-citizens also…
… Absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacy of
such mechanism, needless to say, is bound to prevent those looking
for enforcement of their right to equality before laws and equal
protection of the laws from seeking redress and thereby negate the
guarantee of equality before laws or equal protection of laws and
reduce it to a mere teasing illusion.”
33. The right of fair trial and access to justice, as contemplated by this Court, is not limited to
the physical access to a Court. The right must also include all the necessary prerequisites
of a Court, i.e., the infrastructure, and an unbiased, impartial, and independent judge. At
the cost of repetition, for most litigants in this country, as the only physically accessible
institution for accessing justice is the District Judiciary, the independence of district
judiciary assumes even greater significance.
34. One may go to the extent to state that the rights of “access to justice” and “fair trial”
cannot be exercised by an individual without an independent judiciary. Further, without
fair and speedy trial, the remaining rights, including fundamental and constitutional rights
will not be enforced in a manner known to law. If these instrumental rights themselves
are hindered, then all other rights within the Constitution would not be enforceable.
V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District Judiciary and Higher
Judiciary
35. The essential function of the District Judiciary, as also the function of the High Courts
and this Court is to administer justice impartially and independently. This Court in its
Review Order observed:
“14. Fourthly, the argument that an uniform IoR would equate the
district courts with constitutional courts is erroneous. A uniform
multiplier is used for a uniform increment in pay and not for the
purpose of uniform pay in itself. All Judges across the hierarchy
of courts discharge the same essential function of adjudicating
disputes impartially and independently. Thus, it would not be
17
appropriate to apply graded IoR when SNJPC has chosen to
uniformly apply the multiplier.”
36. Together, the Courts constitute the unified judicial system performing for the core and
essential function of administering justice. To be truly unified both in form and in
substance, there must be integration in terms of pay, pension and other service conditions
between the District Judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court. To this end,
under Article 125 and 221 of the Constitution, the salaries etc. payable to the judges of
the High Court and the Supreme Court are fixed by law as made by Parliament. The
salaries for judges of the High Court are the same across the country by virtue of the
High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
37. Given that in the hierarchy of the unified judicial system a Judge of the High Court is
placed above a District Judge, it follows that a District Judge cannot have more pay more
than a High Court judge. Therefore, the maximum ceiling of pay that a District Judge
may earn is the salary of a High Court judge which is fixed under the aforementioned
statute. Once the salary of the District Judge is pegged against the High Court judge, it
thus follows that any increase in the salary of the judges of the High Court must reflect in
the same proportion to the judges in the District Judiciary. In the Review Order, this
Court observed:
“16. The legitimacy of the principle that the increase of pay of the
judicial officers must be commensurate with the quantum of
increase in the pay of High Court judges has been raised
previously and stands judicially settled. Therefore, any objection to
the IoR on the ground that it has to be lower than that adopted for
increase in the pay of the judges of the High Court is without
cogent basis.”
38. Having considered the constitutional foundations on the basis of which the
recommendations of the SNJPC are to be considered, we will now proceed to examine
the recommendations with respect to pay, pension, gratuity etc.
V.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY
39. We will first deal with the recommendation of SNJPC on pay structure. A summary of
the relevant recommendations of SNJPC on pay are tabulated hereinbelow:
18
Recommendation No. Recommendation
44.1 States/High Courts shall take immediate steps to re-designate the
officers in conformity with the All India pattern as recommended by
FNJPC i.e. those who have not done it so far.
44.2 The new pay structure shall be as per the ‘Pay Matrix’ pattern on the
model of VII CPC as against the ‘Master Pay Scale’ pattern so as to
remove the anomalies and to rationalize the pay structure and to
ensure due benefit to the judicial officers of all cadres within the
framework of established principles
44.3 The categorization of the Judicial officers shall be based on their
status in the functional hierarchy reflected in horizontal range in
Table-I below para 13.1 of the Report
44.4, 44.5 The initial pay for each rank of officer is about 2.81 times the
existing entry pay of each rank except J-6 and J-7, which is in the
same proportion of increase as that of the High Court Judge.
Accordingly, the first row in the horizontal range (J-1 to J-7) denotes
the entry pay for fresh recruits/appointees in that level.
44.6 The new Mean Pay percentage vis-a-vis the salary of High Court
Judge in relation to each cadre and grade as per p.182 of the Report
44.7 The annual increment shall be @3% cumulative, meaning thereby
that the increment @3% has to be calculated on the previous years
basic pay instead of fixed amount increments recommended by
FNJPC and JPC.
44.8 In the Pay Matrix pattern, there shall be now 37 stages instead of 44
44.9 The fitment/migration of the existing officers shall be as reflected in
Table II at para 13.3, p.73
44.10 The procedure for migration/fitment of the serving Judicial officers
and also the procedure for fixation of pay on promotion shall be as
explained in paras 13.5 and 13.8.
44.11(i) As regards the date of accrual of increment, there shall be no change
in the existing system which is being followed in various states/UTs
i.e. the increment shall be once in a year as per the date of
appointment or promotion or financial upgradation.
44.11(ii) The retiring Judicial officers shall have the benefit of increment
19
becoming due the next day following their retirement. That
increment shall be for the purposes of pension only and shall be
subject to vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.
44.12 The pay of the judicial officers of all ranks/grades in the new pay
matrix/pay structure shall be effective from 01.01.2016
44.13 Arrears of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 shall be paid during the calendar
year 2020, after adjusting the interim relief already paid under the
Interim Report dated 09.03.2018.
44.14 The present practice of sanction of DA at the rates prescribed by
Central Government from time to time shall continue. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court may issue directions that the benefit of revised DA in
conformity with the orders issued by the Central Government from
time to time shall be paid to the Judicial officers without delay, and
in any case, not later than 3 months from the date of issuance of the
order by the Central Government. The benefit of revised rates of DA
shall accrue from the effective date as specified in the Order issued
by Central Government in this behalf.
44.15(i) Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) shall not be based on the
application of the existing norm of seniority-cum-merit. There shall
be relaxed norms for assessing the performance in terms of output.
The scrutiny shall be for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether
there is anything positively adverse such as consistently
poor/unsatisfactory performance or adverse report of serious nature
leading to the inference that the Officer is unfit to have the benefit of
ACP.
44.15(ii) If for any reason, delay in grant of ACP goes beyond one year, one
additional increment for every year delay shall be granted subject to
adjustment while drawing the arrears on grant of ACP.
44.16(i) The posts of District Judges (Selection Grade) shall be increased to
35% of the cadre strength as against the existing 25%, and the
District Judges (Super Time Scale) shall be increased to 15% of the
cadre strength as against the existing 10%. It will be effective from
01.01.2020
20
44.16(ii) The upgradation benefit shall be given to the District Judges by
applying the principle of seniority-cum-merit instead of meritcum-
seniority.
44.16(iii) If the post remains or continues for three years it shall form part of
cadre strength.
44.17 The Pay Revision benefit which is already available to the Presiding
Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (outside the regular
cadre of subordinate judiciary) in view of the recommendation of
JPC, shall be extended to them also simultaneously with Judicial
Officers of regular cadre without administrative delays.
44.18 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
Accommodation.
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.
V.1 ORDERS OF THIS COURT ON SNJPC RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY
40. This Court has subsequently passed three detailed orders dealing with 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 dated 18.01.2023 and the final one is Order dated 05.04.2023. In the first
Order, this Court accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended by SNJPC. By
Order dated 18.01.2023, this Court granted additional time to some States to comply with
the Order dated 27.07.2022. Thereafter, some States and the Union filed review petitions
against the Order dated 27.07.2022 passed by this Court. This Court dismissed the
18
Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 17.
21
reviews on 05.04.2023.19 Thus, most of the recommendations of the SNJPC on the pay
structure have become final.
V.2 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY
41. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pay are considered hereinbelow.
I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the All India
Pattern (Recommendation 44.1)
42. As stated above, in India, the judiciary is unified. The designations of judges, therefore,
ought to be uniform across the country. In this regard, the FNJPC suggested the
following nomenclature to be adopted pan-India:
i. Civil Judge (Jr. Div);
ii. Civil Judge (Sr. Div);
iii. District Judge.
43. A thorough examination by the SNJPC revealed that these designations have not been
adopted in few states. It was stated by the Commission that the State of Kerala still
designates its judges as Munsiff and ‘Subordinate Judge’. In the North-Eastern States
too, it was seen that there was some divergence of designation. Uniformity would require
these to be amended in order to be brought under the same umbrella. Pertinently, this
recommendation had been accepted in the FNJPC by virtue 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 followed by the High Courts and all High Courts amend their designations in
conformity with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC.
44. 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.
19
Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.
20
All India Judges' Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 19 and 20.
22
45. This Court thus accepts the recommendation of the Commission. Consequently, the High
Courts are directed to ensure that the designation of judicial officers is uniformly the
same as mentioned in the 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 for Judicial Officers as well. This is desirable as it
simplifies the matter of pay for judges. Notably, this Court has already accepted this
recommendation by Order dated 27.07.2022. 21 This has been confirmed in Order dated
05.04.2023. 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.
III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application (Recommendations 44.4-
44.6)
47. The Multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 has been suggested 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 not been suggested by the 7 th CPC to all cadres of officers. It is their
say that when the Central Pay Commission adopted a graduated fitment factor ranging
from 2.57 for entry level officers to 2.81 for officers of the level of Secretary to the
Government of India, the judicial officers could not have been granted a uniform
multiplier/IoR of 2.81.
48. Their submission is erroneous because, as stated above, 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.22
21
Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 17.
22
See Para 15.50 of FNJPC report and Para 4.8 of the Padmanabhan Commission Report. Also
see, the Orders of this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247
23
49. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that 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 27.07.2022 23 and Order dated 05.04.202324. As
stated above, the principled basis of the acceptance is that the pay of judicial officers in
the District Judiciary can only be based on the pay of Judges of the High Court. This is
because the Judiciary is independent from the Executive and as such, all aspects
including pay cannot be based on the pay granted to the officers of the Executive Wing.
50. It is thus reiterated that the recommendation that the multiplier/index of rationalization as
suggested by the SNJPC be accepted. Consequently, it is directed that the pay of the
judicial officers be increased as 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 existing system of accrual of increment
once a year as per the date of appointment or promotion or the date of financial
upgradation. The sole change it suggested was that judicial officers should have the
benefit of increment falling due the next day following their retirement. The Commission
suggested that this benefit of an additional increment shall be for the purposes 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 when he is not in service on the
date of accrual. This is because the increment is a benefit for the year of service already
rendered. Therefore, the last pay, for the purposes of calculation of pension should
include the increment payable to the judicial officer.
53. Three sets of decisions had been rendered by different High Courts regarding this. The
first view, which was taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and
Allahabad, is that when the increment becomes due the next day after retirement, the
employee ought not to be denied the benefit of the increment for the purposes of pay. The
second view, which was taken by the High Courts of Madras, Orissa and Delhi is that the
and All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 720 at para 6.
23
Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 15 - 16.
24
Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.
24
increment would accrue to officers only for the purpose of pension alone. The third view,
taken by the Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts is that the
increment cannot be granted to the officers.
54. The law has now been settled by this Court in a recent judgment Director, KPTCL v. CP
Mundinamani.25 This Court approved the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad’s
view in Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India26 it was held:
“24. … In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of
June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable
looses significance and must give way to the right of the
government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory
services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner
that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14
of the Constitution of India.”
55. In such circumstances, 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. This will also
obviate any confusion. It is therefore directed that the High Courts 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/-.
V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay Matrix System
(Recommendations 44.8, 44.9, 44.10)
56. The Court notes that the Commission has 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 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, in relation to
the Level applicable to the Officer (i.e., J1, J2 etc.)
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.
25
iii. Where there is an identical figure available in Table-I at the
corresponding stage of the relevant level, the new revised pay shall
be fixed at that stage.
iv. Where there is no identical figure available, the new revised pay
has to be fixed at the very next higher stage in that level in Table-
I.”
57. In order to make matters clear, the Commission has also given illustrations so as to
simplify the fitment/migration formula for the relevant authorities. These illustrations
ought to be considered by the authorities while encoding the rules for the migration to the
pay matrix system.27 It may be noted that the Commission has submitted a Corrigendum
to its Report in March 2021 which has removed certain arithmetical mistakes from the
Fitment Table. This is reflected in Part III of the Report dated March 2021.
58. It may be noted that a similar formula and illustrations have also been devised for
fixation of pay of judicial officers who were promoted on or after 01.01.2016 in the
following terms:
“i. Identify the level and the basic pay in Table I on the date 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 the level to which s(he)
is promoted will be the new pay on promotion.”
The examples provided by the Commission also proceed thereafter to lend clarity to the
formula for promotes as well.
59. While accepting this recommendation for fitment/migration as amended by the
Corrigendum dated March 2021, it is also noted that 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, we accept the recommendation and direct the authorities to implement
the same keeping in mind the examples that have been given by the Commission, as
stated above.
27
See Paras 13.5 at p.75 – 80 and Para 13.8 at p.81 – 82 of the Report.
26
VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016 (Recommendation
44.12)
60. 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. Pertinently, this has already been
noticed by this Court in its Order dated 27.07.2022. 28 Further, the previous Judicial Pay
Commissions had also recommended revision of pay with effect from 01.01.1996 and
01.01.2006 respectively. No objection can therefore be made regarding the application of
the pay structure from 01.01.2016. This recommendation thus merits acceptance. Thus, it
is directed that the benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be given effect to with
effect from 01.01.2016.
VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order dated 27.07.2022
(Modification of Recommendation No.44.13)
61. While the Commission suggested that the arrears of pay be given during the calendar year
2020, this Court after considering the submissions of the Union and the State that the
payment of arrears at one go may not be possible and by Order dated 27.07.2022 directed
that the payments be made in three separate installments. As per this Order as well, the
final installment was payable by 30.06.2023. States had already sought extension of time
to complete payments in the first two instalments. Considering the grievances of the
States, by Order dated 18.01.2023, this Court directed:
“All the States/Union Territories which have made payment of only
the first installment or the first two installments and the States and
Union Territories which have come up with applications for
extension of time, are permitted to make payment of arrears, at
least within the time indicated in this order. The States and Union
Territories which have not yet made payment of the first
installment, shall make payment of the first installment by
31.03.2023. These States and Union Territories, as well as those
who have already made payment of the first installment, shall make
payment of the second installment by 30.04.2023. The third and
final installment shall be made by 30.06.2023.”
28
Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at Para 21.
27
VIII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government (Recommendation
44.14)
62. The recommendation of the SNJPC is that Dearness Allowance may be paid at the rate
fixed by the Central Government. It may be noted that the Commission has found that the
rates fixed by the Central Government are normally accepted by the State across the
country. The purpose of dearness allowance, as explained by this Court in Bengal
Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1969) 2 SCR 113, is “to
neutralise a portion of the increase in the cost of living.” When the rates which are fixed
by the Central Government are followed by most of the States, the recommendation of
the SNJPC is reasonable. This recommendation is also in the interests of uniformity of
service conditions of judicial officers across the country, which, as stated above, is a
cardinal principle on the basis of which the present proceedings are based. Notably, 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.
63. Various States such as West Bengal, Assam, Nagaland and Manipur are agreeable to
rates fixed by the Central Government. The States of Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand,
and Mizoram have argued that their rates must be adopted. Other States have not
specifically stated anything with regard of rates of DA. It is observed that that a uniform
rate 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 Career Progression be given to the Civil
Judges (Jr Div) be granted on the basis of 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 in his first
two years. Assessment of the officer’s performance when the first two years are riddled
with trainings and deputations cannot be done in a serious manner. This is especially so
when, for the first two years, no real work output is expected out of the judicial officer.
28
Therefore, the inability of the Officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not
satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of judicial career need not be
viewed seriously, especially having regard to the objective behind the ACP.
65. Another aspect is that judicial officers serving in the cadre of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) have
only two promotional avenues available to them, i.e., Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and District
Judge. Without any promotional avenues, the stagnation in the service causes loss of
morale to judicial officers which has a direct bearing on their independence.
66. It may be noted that the Limited Competitive Examination which has been introduced by
virtue of this Hon’ble Court’s judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of
India29 only applies to the cadre of Civil Judges (Sr. Div.) to the cadre of District Judges.
The percentage reserved for LCE was initially 25%. This was reduced to 10% by All
India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India30.
67. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, relaxed the aforesaid conditions
only for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services in so far as it permits candidates with
experience of 10 years to appear for the Limited Competitive Examination for becoming
District Judges.31 At the same time, it is noticed that the Maharashtra Judicial Service
Rules, 2008 envisages an additional method for promotion for Civil Judges (Jr Div) by
conducting a separate Limited Competitive Examination for them to be promoted to the
position of Civil Judges (Sr Div). 32 It may be noted that there is no rule for the
participation of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) in the Limited Competitive Examination to be
recruited as District Judge.
68. As regards the relaxed norms which could apply for the 1 st ACP, it is noted that the
SNJPC has recommended that the scrutiny for the grant of First ACP will be limited to
ascertaining whether there is anything positively adverse such as there is any
poor/unsatisfactory performance or there being an adverse report of serious nature
leading to the inference that the officer is unfit to have the benefit of the 1 st ACP. A
29
All India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 at para 28.
30
All India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170 (para 7-8).
31
All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC 494.
32
Rule 5, Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008.
29
similar provision already exists in Rule 3(5) of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules,
2008. This Rule prescribes that for the 1 st ACP, the ACR rating required is only
‘Average’ and for the 2nd ACP, the Judicial Officer needs to be rated ‘Good’ for five
continuous years. Such a rule is only an illustration. High Courts may devise other
methods for these relaxed norms.
69. It is thus directed that 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.
X. Delay in Grant of ACP (Recommendation 44.15(ii))
70. A perusal of the Commission’s Report at para 19.4 and 19.5 shows that, in many states,
the grant of ACP scale is delayed. The Commission found that in certain jurisdictions,
even after completion of more than 10 years of service, ACP was not granted to Civil
Judges (Jr Div) and Civil Judges (Sr Div). This is unpardonable. Stagnation of careers of
judicial officers due to administrative delays causes loss of morale and enthusiasm in
vital stages of their careers, where they are entitled to be considered for career
progression.
71. 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.
72. Separately, 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 6 th/
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.
30
73. The recommendations of the Commission are reasonable. As stated above, delays ought
to be avoided on the administrative side which have the effect of stagnating the career of
a judicial officer. The suggestions of the Commission will bring about much needed
efficiency and perhaps, a standard operating procedure for the grant of ACP in a timely
manner. Thus, the recommendation merits acceptance.
XI. Changes in Percentage of District Judges (Selection Grade) and District
Judges (Super Time Scale) (Recommendation 44.16)
74. The Commission has recommended the increase of percentage of district judges who will
be entitled to District Judge (Selection Grade) and District Judge (Super Time Scale). The
reasoning of the Commission is that due to the limited percentage of District Judge
(Super Time Scale) and District Judge (Selection Grade), many judges from larger states
are unable to reach higher posts before retirement even though they have spent
considerable time in the District Judge Cadre. It also found that as of October, 2019 only
1515 judges out of a cadre strength of 7382 district judges were getting the benefit of
Selection Grade and Super Time Scale.
75. The benefits of Super Time Scale and Selection Grade not reaching a majority of district
judges prior to their retirement is a situation that should be avoided. The recommendation
of the Commission that the Selection grade and Super Time Scale posts should be
increased by 10% and 5% respectively merits acceptance. Essentially, this would entail
that the District Judges at Entry level shall be 50%, selection grade 35% and Super Time
Scale – 15% of the total cadre strength of District Judges.
76. The Recommendations 44.16 (ii) and (iii) are regarding the upgradation to be given to
District Judges by applying the principle of seniority-cum-merit and further that if the
post remains or continues for three years it shall form part of cadre strength. These
recommendations of the SNJPC may be considered at the appropriate stage as they do not
have a bearing on the issues of pay, which are being considered by this Court at this
stage.
31
XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of Industrial
Tribunals/Labour Courts (Recommendation 44.19)
77. Though Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, both statutory courts created under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 194733 are not presided over by judicial officers, they are entitled
to equal pay as district judges based 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 of
Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Assn.35 held that judicial officers of Labour
Courts and Industrial Tribunal ought to be considered on par with judicial officers. The
recommendation of the Tribunal that the pay revision be extended to judges of the
Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts, thus merits acceptance as it is only an extension of
the law laid down by this Court.
XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra (Recommendation 44.18)
78. The Commission noticed that the Judges in the Family Courts in Maharashtra are
recruited through a separate process and the officers form part of a separate cadre. At the
same time, Rule 8 of the Judges of the Family Courts (Recruitment and Service
Conditions) Maharashtra Rules, 1990 also provides that the judge shall draw pay and
allowances at par with the judges (Principal Judge, Additional Principal Judge and Judge
respectively) of the City Civil Court, Bombay and at other places pay and allowances as
admissible to the District Judge.
79. 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.
80. The recommendation of the SNJPC is in line with the same principles mentioned above
in as laid down by this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar36 and State of
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 para 20.
36
State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC 219 at para 19.
32
Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Assn.37 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.
XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Class)
and Special Metropolitan Magistrates (Recommendation 44.19)
81. A reading of para 36 of the report of the Commission shows that in some states, officials
who have worked in the judiciary, retired executive officials possessing law degree etc.
are appointed as Special Judicial Magistrates under Sections 11 and 13 of the CrPC,
1973. The Commission noted that in some states they are paid very meagre remuneration
and consequently has recommended a minimum pay of Rs. 30,000 per month and a
conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/-. The Commission has further recommended that
this benefit shall be given from 01.04.2019.
82. The amicus has argued that even Rs. 30,000 is insufficient today and such a low amount
might not meet the minimum wage requirements in certain states. Considering that under
Section 261, CrPC, 1973 such Magistrates can try offences which are punishable with
fine or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, such Magistrates cannot be considered as
discharging judicial functions that are incomparable to regular Magistrates. As such, their
financial independence is as much a part of judicial independence as is for regular
Magistrates. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission modified by fixing the
remuneration at Rs. 45,000/- per month plus an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- as
conveyance allowance.
83. For the purpose of convenience, the recommendations and their modifications/acceptance
is tabulated below:
Recommendation No. Recommendation Order of this
Court
44.1 States/High Courts shall take immediate steps Accepted
to re-designate the officers in conformity with
the All India pattern as recommended by
37
State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688 at para 20.
33
FNJPC i.e. those who have not done it so far.
44.2 The new pay structure shall be as per the ‘Pay Accepted
Matrix’ pattern on the model of VII CPC as
against the ‘Master Pay Scale’ pattern so as to
remove the anomalies and to rationalize the pay
structure and to ensure due benefit to the
judicial officers of all cadres within the
framework of established principles
44.3 The categorization of the Judicial officers shall Accepted
be based on their status in the functional
hierarchy reflected in horizontal range in Table-
I below para 13.1 of the Report
44.4, 44.5 The initial pay for each rank of officer is about Accepted
2.81 times the existing entry pay of each rank
except J-6 and J-7, which is in the same
proportion of increase as that of the High Court
Judge. Accordingly, the first row in the
horizontal range (J-1 to J-7) denotes the entry
pay for fresh recruits/appointees in that level.
44.6 The new Mean Pay percentage vis-a-vis the Accepted
salary of High Court Judge in relation to each
cadre and grade as per p.182 of the Report
44.7 The annual increment shall be @3% Accepted
cumulative, meaning thereby that the increment
@3% has to be calculated on the previous years
basic pay instead of fixed amount increments
recommended by FNJPC and JPC.
44.8 In the Pay Matrix pattern, there shall be now 37 Accepted
stages instead of 44
44.9 The fitment/migration of the existing officers Accepted – to be
shall be as reflected in Table II at para 13.3, read with
p.73 Corrigendum
dated March
2021 submitted
by the SNJPC
34
44.10 The procedure for migration/fitment of the Accepted – to be
serving Judicial officers and also the procedure read with
for fixation of pay on promotion shall be as Corrigendum
explained in paras 13.5 and 13.8. dated March
2021 submitted
by the SNJPC
44.11(i) As regards the date of accrual of increment, Accepted
there shall be no change in the existing system
which is being followed in various states/UTs
i.e. the increment shall be once in a year as per
the date of appointment or promotion or
financial upgradation.
44.11(ii) The retiring Judicial officers shall have the Accepted
benefit of increment becoming due the next day
following their retirement. That increment shall
be for the purposes of pension only and shall be
subject to vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.
44.12 The pay of the judicial officers of all Accepted
ranks/grades in the new pay matrix/pay
structure shall be effective from 01.01.2016
44.13 Arrears of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 shall be paid Accepted
during the calendar year 2020, after adjusting
the interim relief already paid under the Interim
Report dated 09.03.2018.
44.14 The present practice of sanction of DA at the Accepted
rates prescribed by Central Government from
time to time shall continue. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court may issue directions that the
benefit of revised DA in conformity with the
orders issued by the Central Government from
time to time shall be paid to the Judicial
officers without delay, and in any case, not later
than 3 months from the date of issuance of the
order by the Central Government. The benefit
of revised rates of DA shall accrue from the
effective date as specified in the Order issued
35
by Central Government in this behalf.
44.15(i) Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) shall Accepted, the
not be based on the application of the existing revised norms be
norm of seniority-cum-merit. There shall be developed by the
relaxed norms for assessing the performance in High Courts in
terms of output. The scrutiny shall be for the accordance with
limited purpose of ascertaining whether there is this judgment
anything positively adverse such as consistently
poor/unsatisfactory performance or adverse
report of serious nature leading to the inference
that the Officer is unfit to have the benefit of
ACP.
44.15(ii) If for any reason, delay in grant of ACP goes Accepted
beyond one year, one additional increment for
every year delay shall be granted subject to
adjustment while drawing the arrears on grant
of ACP.
44.16(i) The posts of District Judges (Selection Grade) Accepted
shall be increased to 35% of the cadre strength
as against the existing 25%, and the District
Judges (Super Time Scale) shall be increased to
15% of the cadre strength as against the
existing 10%. It will be effective from
01.01.2020
44.16(ii) The upgradation benefit shall be given to the To be considered
District Judges by applying the principle of at the relevant
seniority-cum-merit instead of merit-cum- stage
seniority.
44.16(iii) If the post remains or continues for three years To be considered
it shall form part of cadre strength. at the relevant
stage
44.17 The Pay Revision benefit which is already Accepted
available to the Presiding Judges of Industrial
Tribunals/Labour Courts (outside the regular
cadre of subordinate judiciary) in view of the
recommendation of JPC, shall be extended to
36
them also simultaneously with Judicial Officers
of regular cadre without administrative delays.
44.18 The Judges of the Family Courts in Accepted
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
Accommodation.
44.19 Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Accepted with
Class)/Special Metropolitan Magistrates modification of
(dealing with petty criminal cases) shall get Rs. 45,000 per
minimum remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month and Rs.
month in addition to conveyance allowance of 5,000/- per
Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and to month for
be suitably revised every five years. conveyance
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITY AND AGE OF RETIREMENT ETC
84. We will now deal with the recommendations of SNJPC on Pension, Gratuity etc. For the
purposes of convenience, the recommendations are set out below:
Recommendation Recommendation
No.
39.1 No change in pension for those retiring after 01.01.2016- the
pension/family pension shall be @50% / 30% of the last drawn pay at
the time of retirement
39.2 Revised pension of retired judicial officers would be 50% of last drawn
37
pay
39.3 Formulations as given in Report to apply for pension revision: (i)
Multiplier factor of 2.81 to be applicable for pension; or (ii) Pensioners
to be fitted appropriately in the fitment table (Table II, para 13.3, Ch. II,
Vol. I, p. 73) whichever is higher
39.4 Judicial officers who retired prior to 01.01.2016 to be placed notionally
at the corresponding stage.
39.5 For judicial Officers who retired prior to 01.01.1996, if no consequential
re- fixation has been done by the Government concerned based on the
directives of this Hon’ble Court, the said benefit shall be extended to
them first without further delay.
39.6 The benefits of number of years of practice at bar subject to maximum
of weightage of ten years will be given to direct recruits of HJS who
retired prior to 01.01.2016.
Family Pension
4.1 For family pensioners, no change is suggested in the 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 member(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 the same manner
as quantum of pension is worked out.
4.4 Income limit, if any prescribed by any State in relation to dependent
family members (other than the spouse) for being eligible to get family
pension shall be not less than Rs.30,000/- per month (rupees thirty
thousand per month).
Additional 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
pensioners/family pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
21.3 No recovery shall be effected from those who have availed the benefit of
38
additional pension on completion of 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 extend the
prevailing benefits upto the age of 75 years to the retired Judicial
officers as well.
Gratuity
8.1 Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Rule 50(1)(a) of CCS
(Pension) Rules 1972.
8.2 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 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. II on the basis
of length in service
Retirement 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 amended 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.
Assistance to Pensioners/Family Pensioners
11.1 Special attention shall be bestowed to them by rendering due assistance
for processing the medical bills of the pensioners/family pensioners who
are too old, infirm or differently abled or undergoing in-patient
treatment for serious ailment
11.2 District Judge shall nominate a Nodal Officer for liasoning work, if
39
required, in emergency in facilitating admission in the hospital and
getting the medical bills of the pensioners/family pensioners cleared
promptly.
11.3 Special Cell entrusted with the responsibility of the processing the
representations of the pensioners/family pensioners and to initiate action
as may be considered appropriate to redress the grievance expediously,
shall be created in the High Court under the supervision of an officer of
the rank of Joint Registrar, in the High Court.
11.4 A Judge of the High Court shall be nominated to oversee the functioning
of Special Cell and issue necessary instructions.
11.5 The representatives of the Retired Judges Associations shall be
permitted to meet the Registrar General of the High Court atleast once in
a year to discuss the problems, if any.
11.6 The Registry of the High Courts to compile data of the pensioners and
family pensioners.
National Pension Scheme
31.1 The National Pension System (NPS)/Defined Contributory Pension
Scheme shall not be applicable to all judicial officers.
31.2 The Defined Benefit Pension Scheme/Old Pension Scheme shall be
applicable to all Judicial officers irrespective of the date of their joining
the judicial service.
31.3 For those who have judicial service after 01.01.2004, the contributions
together with the returns earned thereon will be refunded to them or
transferred to their GPC account.
31.4 The Government shall facilitate opening of the GPF Account of the new
entrants to the judicial service after 01.01.2004 and transfer their
contribution with the returns earned thereon.
7. CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITY ETC
85. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pension are considered
hereinbelow.
40
I. No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On or After 01.01.2016
(Recommendation 39.1)
86. 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.
II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the Last
Drawn Pay
87. After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the One-Person 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.
III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix (Recommendation
No.39.3, 39.4)
88. As a result of the recommendations of the SNJPC on pay, the pensioners also will be
equally benefitted. The recommendation of the Commission is that the multiplier of 2.81
will equally apply to pensioners as well. As a consequence thereof, the pensioners will
also be fitted into the table and pension will be paid to them on this basis. In other words,
to ensure parity of pension between judicial officers who retired at the same level but
under different pay scales, the pension must be brought on par. After extensive analysis,
the Commission has also included certain illustrations to make its recommendations
clear. The illustrations lend clarity to the recommendation and thus ought to be read
along with the recommendation.
89. It may be noted that 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.
41
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 same
scheme in the pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted.
IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who Retired Prior to
01.01.1996 (Recommendation no. 39.5)
91. 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. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v.
Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 444 (dated 08.10.2012) was apprised of the error
committed by the One-Person Commission and directed this to be corrected. However,
the prayer in the application was limited to post-2006 retirees. In a second 38 and third
round39 of litigation, the Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to follow its
Order dated 08.10.2012 and directed revision of pension for those who retired post-1996.
By way of abundant caution, the Commission recommended that those States which have
not granted this benefit to those who retired before 1996, must be given the same benefit.
92. 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 Court directs this recommendation to be implemented
immediately and without delay.
V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating pension
(Recommendation no. 39.6)
93. After considering the judgments rendered by this Court in Government of NCT Delhi v
All India Young Lawyers Association (2009) 14 SCC 49, the Commission, recommended
that the number of years of practice at the Bar subject to the maximum of weightage 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.
42
10 years shall be given while calculating pension and other retiral benefits. This Court in
Government of NCT Delhi reasoned that this would be required as otherwise a direct
recruit from the bar who becomes a District Judge would not be entitled to full pension.
The recommendation, being the implementation of the judgment of this Court, merits
acceptance. It is accordingly ordered.
VI. Recommendations on Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 4.1 to 4.4)
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. Obviously, 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. We accept
the recommendation and direct that the quantum of family pension also worked out in the
same manner as quantum of pension is worked out.
97. 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.
43
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 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 at the rates mentioned in the table on p.44 of the Report.
99. It is seen that different states have different ages for the grant of additional quantum of
pension and family pension. The 7 th CPC suggested the age of 80 years as the minimum.
High Court and Supreme Court judges also receive additional quantum of pension at the
age of 80 years. It was however argued by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate that as
District Judges retire at a younger age, the additional quantum of pension should accrue
to them at a younger age as well.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. The concern of the Commission, reflected in Recommendation No.21.3, that recovery
will be initiated against officers who have been given additional pension from the age of
65 or 70 is genuine. 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.
44
VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)
103. 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.
104. 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.
105. The third recommendation is to make the recommendations effective from 01.01.2016.
This has now been settled by this Court before and has been reiterated in the present
judgment as well. 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. It is accordingly ordered.
106. The final recommendation made by the Commission on the subject of gratuity is that
death gratuity be paid on the same lines as the 7 th CPC. Accordingly, the recommendation
is accepted as it is in line with the already accepted principles laid down by this Court.
IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age
107. No change has been recommended by the Commission to the retirement age of judicial
officers. No opinion, therefore, is expressed on this subject by this Court.
X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of Death
108. 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
45
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.
XI. Recommendations on Assistance to Pensioners
109. The Commission has made some well-considered recommendations on assistance to be
given to pensioners and family pensioners. While they may merit acceptance, it is
appropriate to consider them at a later stage as they do not require any change in
principles or amendments to any rules but are merely executive in nature. Therefore, this
Court is of the opinion that the recommendations may be considered at a later stage.
XII. Recommendations on Abolition of New Pension Scheme
110. This Court has been apprised of the recommendations made by the Commission
regarding the non-applicability of the New Pension Scheme to judicial officers. However,
given the objections raised to this issue by a number of States, the issue may be dealt
with separately after hearing the states. Therefore, this recommendation too will be
considered at a later stage.
111. The resultant position on the recommendations is tabulated below for convenience:
Recommendation Recommendation Order of this
No. Court
39.1 No change in pension for those retiring after Accepted
01.01.2016- the pension/family pension shall be
@50% / 30% of the last drawn pay at the time of
retirement
39.2 Revised pension of retired judicial officers would Accepted
be 50% of last drawn pay
39.3 Formulations as given in Report to apply for Accepted – read
pension revision: (i) Multiplier factor of 2.81 to with the
be applicable for pension; or (ii) Pensioners to be Corrigendum
fitted appropriately in the fitment table (Table II, dated March,
para 13.3, Ch. II, Vol. I, p. 73) whichever is 2021
46
higher
39.4 Judicial officers who retired prior to 01.01.2016 Accepted – read
to be placed notionally at the corresponding stage. with the
Corrigendum
dated March,
2021
39.5 For judicial Officers who retired prior to Accepted –
01.01.1996, if no consequential re- fixation has directed to be
been done by the Government concerned based implemented
on the directives of this Hon’ble Court, the said immediately
benefit shall be extended to them first without
further delay.
39.6 The benefits of number of years of practice at bar Accepted
subject to maximum of weightage of ten years
will be given to direct recruits of HJS who retired
prior to 01.01.2016.
Family Pension
4.1 For family pensioners, no change is suggested in Accepted
the 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 Accepted
family member(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 Accepted
out in the same manner as quantum of pension is
worked out.
4.4 Income limit, if any prescribed by any State in Accepted – with
relation to dependent family members (other than liberty to States to
the spouse) for being eligible to get family grant more
pension shall be not less than Rs.30,000/- per beneficial position
month (rupees thirty thousand per month).
Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension
47
21.1 Additional quantum of family pension on Accepted
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 Accepted
available to all eligible pensioners/family
pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
21.3 No recovery shall be effected from those who Accepted
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
21.4 The State Governments may also choose to Accepted
continue to extend the prevailing benefits upto the
age of 75 years to the retired Judicial officers as
well.
Gratuity
8.1 Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Accepted
Rule 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.
8.4 To the officers who have retired after 01.01.2016 Accepted
and 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 Accepted
p.52, Vol. II on the basis of length in service
Retirement Age of Judicial Officers
No change in retirement age of 60 years Accepted
recommended
48
Financial Assistance in Case of Death
9.1 The benefit of family pension as per Rule 54(3) Accepted
of CCS (Pension) Rules, as amended vide
notification dated 19.09.2019 shall be extended to
the family members.
9.2 The other benefits such as one time lumpsum Accepted
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.
Assistance to Pensioners/Family Pensioners
11.1 Special attention shall be bestowed to them by To be considered
rendering due assistance for processing the at a later stage
medical bills of the pensioners/family pensioners
who are too old, infirm or differently abled or
undergoing in-patient treatment for serious
ailment
11.2 District Judge shall nominate a Nodal Officer for
liasoning work, if required, in emergency in
facilitating admission in the hospital and getting
the medical bills of the pensioners/family
pensioners cleared promptly.
11.3 Special Cell entrusted with the responsibility of
the processing the representations of the
pensioners/family pensioners and to initiate
action as may be considered appropriate to
redress the grievance expediously, shall be
created in the High Court under the supervision of
an officer of the rank of Joint Registrar, in the
High Court.
11.4 A Judge of the High Court shall be nominated to
oversee the functioning of Special Cell and issue
necessary instructions.
11.5 The representatives of the Retired Judges
Associations shall be permitted to meet the
49
Registrar General of the High Court atleast once
in a year to discuss the problems, if any.
11.6 The Registry of the High Courts to compile data
of the pensioners and family pensioners.
National Pension Scheme
31.1 The National Pension System (NPS)/Defined To be considered
Contributory Pension Scheme shall not be at a later stage
applicable to all judicial officers.
31.2 The Defined Benefit Pension Scheme/Old
Pension Scheme shall be applicable to all Judicial
officers irrespective of the date of their joining
the judicial service.
31.3 For those who have judicial service after
01.01.2004, the contributions together with the
returns earned thereon will be refunded to them or
transferred to their GPC account.
31.4 The Government shall facilitate opening of the
GPF Account of the new entrants to the judicial
service after 01.01.2004 and transfer their
contribution with the returns earned thereon.
8. CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTIONS
112. Ultimately, the effect of the acceptance of the recommendations of this Court is that
necessary amendments must be carried out in Service Rules of the Judicial Officers
across all jurisdictions. It is thus directed that the High Courts and the competent
authorities, wherever applicable, bring the rules in conformity with the recommendations
accepted by this Court above within a period of 3 months. 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 by Orders dated 27.07.2022 and
18.01.2023 already directed that all arrears of pay be cleared by 30.06.2023. In this
regard, it is directed that compliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union
50
Territories by 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited into the
accounts of the concerned officers.
114. The revised rates of pension, which have been approved by this Court, shall be payable
from 01.07.2023. For the payment of arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and
other retiral benefits as well, following the Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, it is
directed that 25% will be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and the
remaining 50% by 31.12.2023.
115. List on 17.7.2023 for further compliance on pay and pension on which date this Court
will take up the recommendations on allowances.
....................................CJI.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
........................................J.
[V. Ramasubramanian]
........................................J.
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]
New Delhi;
May 19, 2023
***
51
