# 17 S.C.R. 247 MAHARASHTRA ST ATE JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY & ANR - **Citation:** [2008] 17 S.C.R. 247 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2008-12-11 - **Bench:** K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, J.M. PANCHAl - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/17-s-c-r-247-maharashtra-st-ate-judges-association-ors-v-the-registrar-general-24034 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote Maharashtra Judicial Service (Seniority) Rules, 2007: c rr.4(1)(ii) proviso and r.4(2)- Various categories of Higher Judicial Service put into unified cadre of District Judges w.e.f. 1. 7. 1996 - Seniority of officers appointed as District Judges or Judges of City Civil Court between 1. 7.1996 and 31.3.2003 D, protected - Claim that date of caderisation should be .. 31.3. 1994 and not 1. 7.1996 and seniority of all officers to be reckoned from date of entry into service - Held: Caderisation was rightly given effect from 1. 7. 1996 - Those in the category of Additional District Judges or Additional Chief Judges of E -Small Causes Court have not made any legal right to be placed above those recruited to the higher posts of District Judges or Judges of City Civil Court between 1. 7. 1996 and 31.3.2003 - Validity of the Rules upheld. > The Supreme Court of India, by its orders dated F ·-· ~ 13.11.1991 passed in All India Judges' Association (1)1, adopting the view of the Law Commission in its fourteenth report, directed the Union of India to take appropriate steps to bring about uniformity in the hierarchy, designations and jurisdictions of judicial G' officers of subordinate courts in the country. By a ,,,,, subsequent order dated 24.8.19932, the Court extended 't 1. All India Judges' Association (I) vs. Union of India 1991 Suppl.(2} SCR 206. 2. All India Judges Association(//) vs. Union of India), 1993 Suppl. (1) SCR749. 247 H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A the time upto 31.3.1994 to comply with the directions. Consequently, the Government of India constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Justice Shetty Commission) which by its report dated 11.11.1999 proposed to provide uniform pay scales to be given effect s from 1.7.1996, to the Judicial Officers by dividing them into three levels: (i) Civil Judge (Junior Division) (ii) Civil Judge (Senior Division), and (iii) District Judges. The Court by its order dated 31.3.2002 3 accepted the recommendations of Shetty Commission, and directed c the High Courts and the State Governments to amend their rules to bring them in conformity with its directions. Accordingly, the High Court of Bombay appointed a Committee comprising four Judges (Justice Kapadia Committee) which by its report 1 dated 24.8.2002 grouped various cadres of Higher Judicial Service of the State into D one single Cadre of District Judges consisting of District Judges, Joint District Judges and Judges of City Civil Court (Category-I), Chief Judges, Small Causes Court (Category-1A) Additional District Judges and Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Court (Category-II), and E recommended that 1.7.1.1996 should be the date of; caderisation. For the purpose of seniority,.the Committee recommended that Judicial Officers grouped in Category I would en block rank senior to Category-1A and the latter. would en block rank senior to. Category-II and inter se F seniority wJthin ·eac~ block would be based on the date of entry into the s.ervice as per;Jhe seniority basis.in t~e old cadre. These recommendations were challenged in writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court by City ·Civil Court Judges and the District Judges appointed directly G from the Bar between 1.7.1996 and 21.3.2002, the date of decision in the case of All India Judges' Association (Ill). On the directions of the Supreme Court, the High Court of Bombay constituted anot~er Committee (Justice 3. All India Judges' Association (Ill) vs. Union of India & Ors. 2002 (2) SCR H 712=(2002) 4 sec 247. " .,... ...... MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 249 REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. Gokhale Committee) which submitted its report on A --~ 19.9.2006 reiterating the unified cadre of District Judges and the date of caderisation to be 1.7.1996 as was recommended by Justice Kapadia Committee. But taking note of hardship to certain sections, on account qf retrospective caderisation, it recommended to protect the B seniority of the Judicial Officers ## Text _Characters 0–39,997 of 46,806. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._ [2008) 17 S.C.R. 247 MAHARASHTRA ST ATE JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. A ..... v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY & ANR. (Writ Petition (C) No. 211 of 2007) DECEMBER 11, 2008 B ~ [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAl., JJ.] Maharashtra Judicial Service (Seniority) Rules, 2007: c rr.4(1)(ii) proviso and r.4(2)- Various categories of Higher Judicial Service put into unified cadre of District Judges w.e.f. 1. 7. 1996 - Seniority of officers appointed as District Judges or Judges of City Civil Court between 1. 7.1996 and 31.3.2003 D, protected - Claim that date of caderisation should be .. 31.3. 1994 and not 1. 7.1996 and seniority of all officers to be reckoned from date of entry into service - Held: Caderisation was rightly given effect from 1. 7. 1996 - Those in the category of Additional District Judges or Additional Chief Judges of E -Small Causes Court have not made any legal right to be placed above those recruited to the higher posts of District Judges or Judges of City Civil Court between 1. 7. 1996 and 31.3.2003 - Validity of the Rules upheld. > The Supreme Court of India, by its orders dated F ·-· ~ 13.11.1991 passed in All India Judges' Association (1)1, adopting the view of the Law Commission in its fourteenth report, directed the Union of India to take appropriate steps to bring about uniformity in the hierarchy, designations and jurisdictions of judicial G' officers of subordinate courts in the country. By a ,,,,, subsequent order dated 24.8.19932, the Court extended 't 1. All India Judges' Association (I) vs. Union of India 1991 Suppl.(2} SCR 206. 2. All India Judges Association(//) vs. Union of India), 1993 Suppl. (1) SCR749. 247 H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A the time upto 31.3.1994 to comply with the directions. Consequently, the Government of India constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Justice Shetty Commission) which by its report dated 11.11.1999 proposed to provide uniform pay scales to be given effect s from 1.7.1996, to the Judicial Officers by dividing them into three levels: (i) Civil Judge (Junior Division) (ii) Civil Judge (Senior Division), and (iii) District Judges. The Court by its order dated 31.3.2002 3 accepted the recommendations of Shetty Commission, and directed c the High Courts and the State Governments to amend their rules to bring them in conformity with its directions. Accordingly, the High Court of Bombay appointed a Committee comprising four Judges (Justice Kapadia Committee) which by its report 1 dated 24.8.2002 grouped various cadres of Higher Judicial Service of the State into D one single Cadre of District Judges consisting of District Judges, Joint District Judges and Judges of City Civil Court (Category-I), Chief Judges, Small Causes Court (Category-1A) Additional District Judges and Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Court (Category-II), and E recommended that 1.7.1.1996 should be the date of; caderisation. For the purpose of seniority,.the Committee recommended that Judicial Officers grouped in Category I would en block rank senior to Category-1A and the latter. would en block rank senior to. Category-II and inter se F seniority wJthin ·eac~ block would be based on the date of entry into the s.ervice as per;Jhe seniority basis.in t~e old cadre. These recommendations were challenged in writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court by City ·Civil Court Judges and the District Judges appointed directly G from the Bar between 1.7.1996 and 21.3.2002, the date of decision in the case of All India Judges' Association (Ill). On the directions of the Supreme Court, the High Court of Bombay constituted anot~er Committee (Justice 3. All India Judges' Association (Ill) vs. Union of India & Ors. 2002 (2) SCR H 712=(2002) 4 sec 247. " .,... ...... MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 249 REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. Gokhale Committee) which submitted its report on A --~ 19.9.2006 reiterating the unified cadre of District Judges and the date of caderisation to be 1.7.1996 as was recommended by Justice Kapadia Committee. But taking note of hardship to certain sections, on account qf retrospective caderisation, it recommended to protect the B seniority of the Judicial Officers who obtained their positions either as City Civil Judges or District Judges ·~ by direct appointment or by promotion between 1.7.1996 · and 31.3.2003. These recommendations were accepted in the Full Court meeting of the Bombay High Court and c . pursuant thereto the State Govern.ment framed th• Maharashtra Judicial Service (Seniority) Rules, 2007 and the same were deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 1.7.1996. The instant writ petition was filed by some of the D District Judges contending that having regard to th~ ~ directions given by the Supreme Court in AU India Judges' Association (I) and (II), the date of caderisation · should have been 31.3.1994 and not 1.7.1996. It was alternatively contended that once the date of caderisation E was accepted as 1.7.1996, the seniority of the Judicial Officers should have been reckoned from the date of entry into the service and insertion of proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Rules protecting the seniority of only City Civil Court Judges and District Judges appointed between F ... 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003 was illegal and violative of ' ..,. principle of equality. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court I HELD:1.1. It would not be correct to say that the, G failure to have a uniform cadre of District Judges with ...._ ')- effect from 31.3.1994 amounts to disobedience of the orders dated 13.11.1991 and 24.8.1993 passed by this Court. All that was directed by the order dated 13.11.1991 in All India Judges Association(/) was that uniformity should H e 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S~C.R. A be brought in the designations of judicial officers as· District or Addi. District Judge, Civil Judge (Senior r Division) and <:;ivil Juidge (Junior Division) on the civil side and Sessions Judge~ or Additional Sessions Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrates/ and Magistrates on the criminal side. B Even in the All India Judges Assoqiation(ll), what was directed by order dated 24.8.1993 was implementation of the Law Commissi/on's recommendations to bring about uniformity in hierarchy, designations and jurisdiction of 1 officers both on dvil and criminal sides, as directed on c 13.11.1991. Cad1erisation by integration of multiple categories of pos;ts was not suggested either in All India Judges Associatlion (/) or (//). There was no specific direction to integrate into a single unified cadre, wherever mult!ple categories existed. [Paras 12 and 14] [267-H; 268D A•C] All India Judges' Association (/) vs. Union of India 1991 Suppl. ( 2 ) SCR· 206 =1992 (1) SCC 119 and All India )..f Judges Association (II) vs. Union of Jnaia), 1993 Suppl. ( 1 ) SCR 749-1993 (4) SCC 288 - referred to. E 1.2. It was ori_ly when the Shetty Commission recommended three cadres, namely, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Civil Judge (Senior Division) and District ~ Judges with pay scales for the respective cadres, that it ~ F became necessary to unify or integrate the multiple categories into three cadres of District Judge, Civil Judge "' I . (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division). As )' Shetty Commission had recommended the applicability of new pay-scales with effect from 1. 7 .1996, it became G inevitable to have the integraticm/unification of the multiple categories into three cadres, with effect from 1.7.1996. Further, this Court in All India Judges Association(/11) directed on 21.3.2002 acceptance of Shetty ,.(~ Commission recommendations of three cadres of District Judge~, Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge :oiil H (Junior Division) with effect from 1.7.1996. Therefore, the MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 251 REGISTRAR CJENERAL & ANR. caderisation was rightly given effect from 1.7.1996 under A -.i: the Maharashtra Judicial Service (Seniority) Rules, 2007. [Para 12] [268-D-G] All India Judges' Association (Ill) Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2002 ( 2) SCR 712 =(2002) 4 SCC 247, referred to. 8 Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India 1988 (2) SCC 587 and T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana 1989 (4) SCC 71, cited. 2.1. It is significant to note that when appointments were made to the post of District Judges or City Civil C Court Judges either by direct recruitment or by promotion between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003, there was no rule or enforceable direction for caderisation by integrating the lower posts of Addi. District Judges and Addi. Chief Judges of Small Causes Court with the higher D' posts of District Judges/City Civil Court Judges/Chief Judge of Small Causes Court. Merely because caderisation by integration was required to be done with effect from 1. 7.1996 as Shetty Committee recommendations for revised pay scales were given with E , effect from that date, it does not follow that the persons who were appointed between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003 in the higher posts of District Judges/City Civil Court Judges should lose their seniority to persons who were holding lower posts when they were appointed. Those F . holding the posts of Addi. District Judges and Addi. Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes were at a rung lower than District Judges/City Civil Court Judges/Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes and time was available till 31.3.2003 to equate them with the higher posts in the hierarchy. Such a benefit was conferred in pursuance of G the order dated 21.3.2002 with effect from the date of making rules for which the last date stipulated was 31.3.2003. Therefore Justice Gokhale Committee rightly recommended that the seniority of those appointed between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003 should be protected. H 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 17 S.C.R. A [Para 14] [270-H; 271-A-E] 2.2. All that the proviso to Rule 4(1) has done is to provide the protection to which those mentioned in the said. proviso were entitled. There is · nothing B discriminating. or illegal in. the said proviso. Those in the category of Additional District Judges or Addi. Chief Judges of Small Cause Court have not made any legal right to be placed above those recruited to the higher posts of District Judges and City Civil. Court Judges between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003 .. The validity of the C · Maharashtra Judicial Service (Seniority)· Rules, 2007 is · :·upheld. [Para 14] [271-E-FJ Case Law Reference:· D . [199~J .$upp 2. S~R 206 ., referred to para 2 · 1993 Suppl.(1) SCR 749 referred to para 2 2002· (2) SCR 712 referred to para 2 I 1988. (2) sec 587 cited para 11 ·.·. 1989; (4) sec 71 cited para 11 ' E CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 211 of2007. · · · F (Under Article.32 of the Constitution ofJndia). . ·. ' . . I . . . DushyantDave, P.H. Parekh, Amit Sharma, Anupam Lal Das,Madhavi Divan, E.R. Kumar 1and t(Chaturvedi (forParekh · . & Co.) for the· appearing parties'. · G The Judgmeryt ~f the ~ourt was d'.elivered by · K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ~ 1. s'y this Writ Petition flied e y- )....:' under Article 32 of the Constitution ~f India, the Maharashtra ~ .> State Judges Association and some District ·Judges, have H sought the following directions to the respondents : ... MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 253 REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] (i) to make an uniform single cadre of District Judges by A merging the posts of District Judges, Addi. District Judges, City Civil Court Judges, Chief Judge and Addi. Chief Judges of Small Cause Court, with effect from 13.11.1991 or alternatively with effect from 31.3.1994 (or further alternatively from 1.7.1996) with inter-se seniority B being determined with reference to the date of entry into service in the said posts. ,., (ii) to withdraw the Maharashtra Judicial Service ~ (Seniority) Rules 2007 (for short the 'Rules') and make c rules in regard to seniority, in conformity with the decision ) of this Court, by having a single uniform cadre of District Judges (by merging the aforesaid multiple categories of posts) with effect from 13.11.1991 or 31.3.1994 or 1.7.1996; or in the alternative, to quash the said Rules in D particular the proviso to Rule 4(1) of the said Rules. (iii) to withdraw the draft gradation list of District Judges circulated on 30.3_2007 and make the said list as on 13.11.1991, or 31.3.1994 or 1.7.1996 on the basis of entry of the Judicial Officers in the cadre as District Judges/ e Addi. District Judges/City Civil Court Judges/Chief Judge and Addi. Chief Judges of Small Court. Background Facts 2. In the year 1989, a writ petition was filed in this Court F ~ by the All India Judges' Association praying for setting up an - All India Judicial Service and for bringing about uniform conditions of service for members of sub-ordinate judiciary throughout the country. The judgment in the said petition rendered on 13.11.1991 issuing several directions is reported G ' in All India Judges' Association (/) vs. Union of India [1992 "-· (1) SCC 119]. The said judgment inter alia directed the Union )'- of India to take steps to bring about uniformity in the designation of judicial officers (both in civil and the criminal side) by March H 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS e [2008] 17 S.C.R. ~ A 31, 1993. This Court adopting the view of the Law Commission in its fourteenth report, observed as follows : ~ "On the civil side, the State Judicial service, therefore, should be classified as Dis.trict or Additional District B Judge, Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division). On the criminal side, there should be a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge and below him there should be the Chief Judicial Magistrate and ..J.. Magistrates provided for in the Code of Criminal f c Procedure. Appropriate adjustments, if any, may be made of existing posts by indicating their eq.uivalence with any of these categories. The process of bringing about such uniformity would require some time and perhaps some monitoring." D This Court also expressed the view that setting up an All India Judicial Service essentially for manning the higher services in the sub-ordinate Judiciary was necessary and directed the y Union of India to take appropriate steps in that regard. By a further order dated ·24.8.1993 (reported in 1993 (4) sec 288 E -All India Judges Association (II) vs. Union of India), the time to comply with the directions for bringing about uniformity in hierarchy, designations and jurisdictions of judicial officers on both civil and criminal sides was extended upto 31.3.1994. F 3. On 21.3.1996, the Government of India by a resolution constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission ~ ('Commission' for short) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice ... ,," K. Jagannatha Shetty, mainly to evolve the principles which should govern the structure of pay 1and emoluments of Judicial G Officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary all over the country. The Commission submitted its report on 11.11.1999. By its Judgment dated 21.3.2002, this Court in All India Judges' Association (Ill) Vs. Union of India & Ors.(2002) 4 _.> -'f sec 247, accepted the recommendations of Shetty Commission subject to the modifications mentioned in the said H ' I'""-· ,.._ MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 255 REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] judgment. The High Courts and the State Governments were A required to amend their rules to bring them in conformity with the directions of this Court. This Court further directed "Any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions B given in this Judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other Court shall entertain them." 4. Justice Shetty Commission had found that in most of the States and Union Territories, there were three cadres of Judicial Officers with uniform designations. But in a few States, C there were different designations and multiple categories. Therefore, the Commission suggested that uniformity be brought about in cadres and designations with uniform jurisdiction. This was also an absolute necessity since Commission proposed to provide uniform pay scales and other D emoluments to the Judicial Officers by dividing them into three levels, namely (i) Civil Judge (Junior Division) to be referred to as 'Civil Judges'; (ii) Civil Judge (Senior Division) to be referred to as Senior Civil Judges; and (iii) District Judges. It also recommended pay scales on that basis to be given effect from E 1.7.1996. 5. When the report of the Shetty Commission was submitted, the sub-ordinate Judiciary in the State of Maharashtra had multiple categories of Judges with different F designations, as follows : I. Higher Judicial Service (a) District Judge (and Joint District Judges) (b) Additional District Judge, G (c) Judge~ of the Bombay .city Civil Court, (d) Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, (e) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, H A B c D 256 II. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R. (f) Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, and (g) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Subordinate Judicial Service (a) Metropolitan Magistrate and Judges of the Small Causes Court, Bombay and (b) Civil Judge (Senior Division). (c) Civil Judge (Junior Division). Out of them, the following four categories related to mofussil area: (a) (b) (c) (d) District Judge, Additional District Jud~e. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) I The following other categories were for Mumbai area : E (a) Judges of the City Civil Court, F (b) Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (c) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, and (d) Metropolitan Magistrates and Judges of the Small Causes Court. The scales of pay, sources of recruitment and promotional G avenues for these posts were also different as detailed below: H _, > Sr. Cadre Pay as per No. (IVth Pay Commission 1. Civil Judge 2200-4000 (Jr. Division) 2. CivilJuage 3200-4625 (Sr. Division) 3. Metropolitan 3700-5000 Magistrate . 4. Judge, Small 3700-5000 Cause Court 5. Addi. Chief 3700-5000 Metropolitan Magistrate 6. Addi. Chief 3700-5000 Judge, sec, Bombay 7. Addi. District 3700-5000 Judges Pay as per (Vth Pay Commission) 8000-13500 10650-15850 12000-18500 12000-18500 12000-18500 12000-18500 12000-18500 ) -l Source of recruitment Direct recruitment from Bar Promotion from C.J (J.D) Direct recruitment from Bar and by promotion from Civil Judges. By promotion from Civil Judges and by direct recruitment from Bar. Promotion from Metropolitan Magistrate and SCC and by transfer of ADJs. Promotion from Judges of Court of SCC or Metropolitan Magistrates. Promotion from Junior Branch Judicial Service. I :( Promotional Avenue Senior Civil Judge A.D.J., sec, Addi. C.M.M. Addi. C.M.M. Addi. Chief Judge, SCC Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai. Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai. Judge City Civil and Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay or District Judge. ' / :::a s: m )> G> ::i:: . (J) )> ..., :::a .·~?;; :::a ::i:: G>..., m :::a z )> m U> ~~ r..., Qom )> c.... Zc ;:o CJ ...... G> ?'m ~ (J) ~ j:. ):~ ;;,;;O :::a z ':n. ::i:: Qo $0 z :::a - (J) (). .t: :-:: 8. t;hret Judge, 4500-5700 14300-18300 sec. Bombay ., 9. District Judge/ 4500-5700 14300-18300 Joint District Judge 10. Judge, City · 5400-0500 16400-20900. Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay. .i.._ l ;, • t 1 ranster ot uis.tnct Judge or by promotion of Addi. District Judge/ Addi. Chief Judge, SCC/Addl. C.M.M. Promotion from junior Branch or by direct recruitment from Bar with minimum practice of 7 years. Dil"ect recruitment fr.om Bar, by transfer of District Judge, and promotion of Chief Judge, SCC, Addi. Chief Judge, SCC, C.M.M., Addi. C.M.M. and promotion of Addi. Dist. Judges. ~ Judge, Crty Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay. Eligible for elevation as Judge of High Court. . Eligible for elevation as Judge of High Court. .. :{ ' ,, N CJ1 CX> (f) c -0 :::0 m s:: m () 0 c :::0 -I ::a m -0 0 ::a ~ 'N 0 0 s ..... ......, (f) h ::a MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 259 REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] 6. In view of the acceptance of Shetty Commission's A --y recommendation by this Court and consequential directions, the High Court of Bombay on its administrative side considered the matter in the light of the directions given by this Court and appointed a four- member Comrrii~iee of Judges under the Chairmanship of Justice S.H. KapaJ:)ia of the Bombay High f3 Court (as he then was) to impleme~~lfte directions of this Court issued while accepting the Justice s'tietty Commission Report. .,;.., The Committee by its report dated 24.8.2002 accepted that '\. there shall be uniform single cadre of District Judges consisting of District Judges, Joint District Judges and City Civil Court c Judges (Category-I), Chief Judge, Small Cause Court (Category-IA), Addi. District Judges and Addi. Chief Judges, Small Cause Court (Category;-11). The Committee also recommended that 1. 7 .1996 should be the date for caderisation. We extract below· the relevant portions of the D report: "Constitution of unified cadre As far as constitution of the cadre of District Judge is concerned, the Committee has equated the three cadres E of District Judge, Joint District Judge and City Civil Court Judges into one category/block (hereinafter referred to as Category No.I). This equation is based on numerous factors. For example, Judges of the City Civil Court, ....::.., Bombay have different sources of recruitment viz., by F ~ transfer of District Judge, by promotion from the cadre of ....... - Addi. District Judge, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,· Addi. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court and by nomination. Therefore, a District Judge can be transferred to City Civil Court and viceG versa. Therefore, apart from that post being a promotional post, looking to the nature of the functions discharged in .... ~ that cadre and the qualifications for recruitment the Committee has equated the cadres of District Judge,. Joint • Oistrict Judge and City Civil Court Judges into one block/ H 260 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 17 S.C.R. Category No.I. In the same category, however, the Committee has recommended a sub-category styled as Category No.IA, which applies to Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. This sub-category No.IA has been made because the post of Chief Judge; Small Cause Court is a feeder post to the City Civil Court Uudges cadre. Therefore, although the Chief Judge, Small Cause Court comes under Category No.I that cadre will be. placed after the unified block consisting of District Jud,ge/Joint District Judge/ Judges of the City Civil Court. This is also in view of the difference in the pay scale betWeen. category No.I and category no. IA. It needs to be clarified that the prin.ciple of date of entry, therefore, would apply to category no.I which would cover District Juqge/Joint District Judge/ Judges of the City Civil Court as a block and the inter-se seniority within that block shall be governed by the date of entry. Category-I and Category-JA, however, will be placed above Category-II which will cover Addi: District Judges and Addi. Chief Judges, Small Causes Court on the same principles of duties performed, parity of pay-scales and they constituting feeder post for the post of District Judge/City Civil Court Judge. To sum up, the analysis of Annexure-11 shows that in the new cadre of District Judge, category; No.I will consist of District Judges, Joint District Judges/City Civil Court Judges. They will constitute one single bloc and that bloc will rank senior to category no.IA consisting of Chief Judge, Small Cause Court and similarly category no.IA as one single bloc will be placed above category no.II consisting of Addi. District Judges/Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Court. As stated above, within each bloc', the inter-se seniority will be based on the date of entry in the post and as per the seniority basis in the old cadre. By this method, we are applying the principle of unification of unequal cadres and t - .. _ MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 261 REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] we are also applying the rule of date of entry for the A ~ purposes of seniority inter-se within each bloc. Therefore, the new cadre of District Judge will consist of the above two categories. Date of Caderization B The Committee considered various options for fixing the date of caderisation. The consensus which ultimately --t emerged was that the date of caderisation should be taken as 1. 7 .1996. The reason is as follows. Under the Report of Shetty Commission, the various old cadres are required c to be merged into three cadres viz., Civil Judge, Senior Civil Judge and District Judge. It is important to note that under the Report, the financial liability is fixed ~ith effect from 1. 7 .1996. The pay scales recommended by the Commission have to be given effect to from 1.7.1996. p That, for the purposes of pay, the post of Addi. District Judge has to .be equated with District Judge. It was not possible for the Committee to have two separate dates - one for caderisation and one for pay fixation. Even as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges E Association case (supra) decided in 2002, the cut off date for pay fixation and for payment of other allowances is !. 1.7.199. Therefore, the Committee is of the view that the date of caderisation will be taken on 1. 7.1996. In fact, after fixing the date of caderisation as 1.7.199, the Committee F -4\ has worked out the above categorization on en block basis """.....- ........,..- keeping in mind the various principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulkarni's (supra) case. In other words, 1.7.1996 is the cut off date. In other words, applying 1. 7 .1996 as the cut off date, the Committee has G evolved the above categorization/blocks for the purposes of unifying the various old cadres into three cadres and, ..... ) at the same time, the Committee has applied the principle .;· of the date of entry for fixing the inter-se seniority withiri each block/category. The committee is of the view that this H 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. ' A is the only method by which the various cadres could be unified/mera~;keeping intact the; seniority of the judicial +- officers in ea~,§category/block." 7. Several wrlil petitions were filed before this Court B challenging the recommendations of Justice Kapadia Committee report. WP(C) 258/2003 was filed by the petitioner Association and some of its members. WP(C) No. 75/2004 was filed by persons· appointed as City Civil Court Judges from the t Bar after 1.7.1996 (1997 batch). WP(C) No.157/2004 was filed c by persons appointed from the Bar 'as District Judges after I 1.7.1996 (after initially serving as Addi. District Judges for minimum period· of 2 years as per B~SR Rules ·1956. W~(C) No.429/2004 "Yas filed by persons appointed as District Judge from the Bar afte~ 1.7.1996 and prior to 21.3.2002 (date of D decision in All India Judges' Association Ill). This Court by a common Judgment dated 15.2.2006 disposed of these Writ Petitions with the following observaUon:- ¥ "We are of the view ttiat it would be expedient if the High Court first examines the grievances made in the petition E having regard to all relevant cqnsiderations. Further; we hope that the High Court would be in a position to decide the same expeditiously. It may be clarified that we have not examined the matter on merits and express no view one way or the other. F In thi~ view, we dispose of these Writ Petitions/ 1-- Applications with liberty to anyone· who may be aggrieved ..,.__ _, to approach the appropriate fc;>rum." 8. ,The High Court of Bombay on its administrative side G considered the matter as per the directions given by this Court and appointed a fresh Committee, of three Judges under the Chairmanship of Justice Gokhale, a Judge of the High Court -f ,,. (as he then was). The said Committee submitted its Report dated 19.9.2006. The said Report did not disturb the \ ,. H constitution of the unified c'adre of District Judges MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 263 REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] recommended by Justice Kapadia Committee. It also A ·-rreiterated the recommendation of Justice Kapadia Committee that the date of caderisation should be 1.7.1996. But taking note of hardship to certain sections, on account of retrospective caderisation, it suggested a modification to protect the seniority of Judicial Officers who obtained their positions either as City B Civil Judges or District Judges by direct appointment or by promotion between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003. The reasoning of the Committee in this behalf is extracted below : "As we have noted above, the judgment in the Judges' ',c Case No.Ill contains the directions to integrate the cadre and to implement the Shetty Commission Report with ' respect to revised pay scales. This direction was given in this judgment rendered on 21st March, 2002. The benefits with respect to revision in pay have been given from 1st July, 1996 as directed. We have adopted the same date D as the date of caderisation. The rules were directed to be -._, framed at the earliest and in any case, by 31st March, 2003. It can, therefore, be said that the Judicial Officers had a notice that the new rules and the integrated cadre and seniority were to come in force in any case by 31st E March, 2003. It is another matter that the rules have not been finalized so far and, therefore, the Bombay Judicial ~ Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 are still in force. As seen in Anil Kumar Shetye's case (supra), the Apex Court has in terms noted that the Addi. District Judge's post is a F. ' ,.., feeder post to that of a City Civil Court and that the salaries .. -· of the City Civil Court Judges are also higher. In para 29 in Judges' Case No.Ill, the Apex Court has noted as seen above that the existing relative seniority of the members of the Higher Judicial Service has to be protected. This G will have to be done until the new Rules come into force. It ~).. is true that as. observed in BM Gupta's case (supra), the Judges' Case Nos.I and II brought about changes in certain '"". ....., legitimate expectations. On the contentions urged two points arise for our consideration : G (i) Whether the caderi'sation (merger of posts of District Judges/Joint District Judges/City Civil Court Judges/Chief Judge of Small Causes Court/Addi. -I .I" District Judges/Addi. Chief Judge of Small Cause - Court) should be with effect from 31.3.1994 instead ! H ,._ MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSON. & ORS. v. 267 REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] " of 1. 7. 1996? A --y (ii) Whether insertion of proviso to Rule 4(1) to protect the seniority of persons appointed by direct recruitment or promotion between 1. 7 .1996 to 31.3.2003 is illegal and discriminatory? B Re : Point (i) 11. This Court by order dated 13.11.1991 in All India -t Judges Association(/) had directed that steps should be taken to bring about uniformity in hierarchy, designations and c jurisdictions of the Judicial Officers on both civil and criminal sides by 31.3.1993. It is submitted that while Union of India and some other States had sought review of the first order dated 13.11.1991, the State of Maharasi·'tra did not seek either review of the order or sought extension of time for implementation. By D ' subsequent order dated 24.8.1993 while disposing of the review petition, this Court in All India Judges Association(//), ~ extended the time for bringing about uniformity in hierarchy, designations and jurisdictions of the Judicial Officers up to 31.3.1994. It is therefore contended that the state of E Maharashtra was bound to comply with the said orders and, consequently, ought to have brought in caderisation by having a single and uniform cadre of District Judges latest by 31.3.1994. It is submitted that even if there was some delay, the caderisation when made, ought to have been given F retrospective effect from 31'.3.1994. Reliance is placed on the "' decision of Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India [1988 (2) SCC ~ 587] and T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana [1989 (4) SCC 71] to contend that the orders of this Court are binding on all and should be implemented within the time specified. It is contended that the caderisation by constituting a unified cadre of District G Judges with effect from 1.7.1996 violated the earlier orders dated 13.11.1991 and 24.8.1993. "\ ~ 12. The contention of the petitioner that the failure to have a uniform cadre of District Judges with effect from 31.3.1994 H 268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. e A amounts to disobedience of the orders dated 13.11.1991 and 24.8.1993, cannot be accepted. All that was directed by the order dated 13.11.1991 in Al/India Judges Association(/) was -+- that uniformity should be brought in the designations of judicial officers as District or Addi'. District Judge, Civil Judge (Senior B Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Diwision) on the civil side and Sessions Judge or Additional ~essions Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrates and Magistrates on the criminal side. Even in the All India Judges Association(//), what was directed by order r dated 24.8.1993 was implementation of the Law Commission's c recommendations to bring about uniformity in hierarchy, designations and jurisdiction of officers both on civil and criminal sides, as directed on 13.11.1991. There was no ' specific direction to integrate into a single unified cadre, wherever multiple categories existed. It was only when the Shetty Commission recommended that there should be only ;._ D three cadres, namely, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Civil Judge I (Senior Division) and District Judges, and pay scales were also recommended with reference to sa 1 id three cadres; it became ),..r necessary to unify or integrate the multiple categories into three E cadres of District Judges, Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division). As Shetty Commission had . I recommended the applicability of new pay.:-scales with effect from 1.7.1996, it became inevitable to have the integration/ unification of the multiple categories into three cadres, with effect from 1. 7 .1996.