# All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 26
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-01-04
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-india-judges-association-v-union-of-india-ors-37402
- **Pages:** 47

## Headnote

Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers
by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
Headnotes
Judiciary - District Judiciary - Recommendations by Second
National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) regarding various
allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers - 21
allowances considered by SNJPC in its report:
Held: As regards House Building Advance (HBA), recommendation
of SNJPC that HBA be available to judicial officers also for the
purchase of a ready built house from private individuals subject
to such safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Govt.
in consultation with their respective High Courts - Modification
accepted - Payment of Children Education Allowance as
recommended, approved - Recommendation for discontinuation
of City Compensatory Allowance and no recovery to be made,
accepted - Recommendations w.r.t Concurrent Charges Allowance;
payment of conveyance/transport allowance; Earned Leave
Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill Area/Tough
Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance;
Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance; Robe
Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone
Facility; Transfer Grant accepted -As regards Higher Qualification
Allowance, the restrictive condition imposed by SNJPC in regard
to non-extension of advance increments at the ACP stage,
not accepted - Subject to this clarification, recommendations
accepted - Further, out of the five components of house rent
related allowances, two components-Furniture and Air Conditioner
Allowance and Maintenance introduced for the first time - All the
328
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
components suggested are accepted - As regards, Leave Travel
Concession/Home Travel Concession, recommendations are on
a continuum and accepted, except for foreign travel to SAARC
countries which shall be deleted - Substantive recommendations
made w.r.t Medical Allowance/Facilities, accepted - As regards
sumptuary allowance, recommendation for increase of 2.25 times
based on the yardstick of annual inflation and increase of points
in the consumer price index, accepted - Committee for Service
Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) be constituted
in each High Court for overseeing the implementation of the
recommendations of the SNJPC as approved - Composition,
functions of the Committee and the issues to be considered,
enumerated - States and Union Territories to act in terms of the
directions expeditiously - Disbursements on account of arrears of
salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers,
retired judicial officers and family pensioners be computed and
paid on or before 29.02.2024 - CSCDJs to monitor compliance
and submit report on or before 07.04.2024. [Paras 20, 24, 27,
29, 32, 34, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 55, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74, 77,
79, 81, 83-87]
Judiciary - District Judiciary - Allowances for judicial
officers, retired judicial officers - Objections raised that
revision of rates/new allowances will result in an increased
financial burden and expenditure; the rules governing the
payment of allowances prescribed by each State for their
own administrative establishment must be followed; and
the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be
equivalent to those provided to other Government officers:
Held: Submissions urged on behalf of the States have been
considered in several previous judgments of this Court - Judicial
service is an integral and significant component of the functions of
the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to sustain
the rule of law - State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions
of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement,
are commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working
conditions for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement
emoluments made available to former members of the judicial
service - Members of the district judiciary

## Text

_Characters 0–39,902 of 99,239. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39902 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 327 : 2024 INSC 26
All India Judges Association
v.
Union of India & Ors
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 643 of 2015)
04 January 2024
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers
by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
Headnotes
Judiciary - District Judiciary - Recommendations by Second
National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) regarding various
allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers - 21
allowances considered by SNJPC in its report:
Held: As regards House Building Advance (HBA), recommendation
of SNJPC that HBA be available to judicial officers also for the
purchase of a ready built house from private individuals subject
to such safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Govt.
in consultation with their respective High Courts - Modification
accepted - Payment of Children Education Allowance as
recommended, approved - Recommendation for discontinuation
of City Compensatory Allowance and no recovery to be made,
accepted - Recommendations w.r.t Concurrent Charges Allowance;
payment of conveyance/transport allowance; Earned Leave
Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill Area/Tough
Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance;
Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance; Robe
Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone
Facility; Transfer Grant accepted -As regards Higher Qualification
Allowance, the restrictive condition imposed by SNJPC in regard
to non-extension of advance increments at the ACP stage,
not accepted - Subject to this clarification, recommendations
accepted - Further, out of the five components of house rent
related allowances, two components-Furniture and Air Conditioner
Allowance and Maintenance introduced for the first time - All the
328
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
components suggested are accepted - As regards, Leave Travel
Concession/Home Travel Concession, recommendations are on
a continuum and accepted, except for foreign travel to SAARC
countries which shall be deleted - Substantive recommendations
made w.r.t Medical Allowance/Facilities, accepted - As regards
sumptuary allowance, recommendation for increase of 2.25 times
based on the yardstick of annual inflation and increase of points
in the consumer price index, accepted - Committee for Service
Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) be constituted
in each High Court for overseeing the implementation of the
recommendations of the SNJPC as approved - Composition,
functions of the Committee and the issues to be considered,
enumerated - States and Union Territories to act in terms of the
directions expeditiously - Disbursements on account of arrears of
salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers,
retired judicial officers and family pensioners be computed and
paid on or before 29.02.2024 - CSCDJs to monitor compliance
and submit report on or before 07.04.2024. [Paras 20, 24, 27,
29, 32, 34, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 55, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74, 77,
79, 81, 83-87]
Judiciary - District Judiciary - Allowances for judicial
officers, retired judicial officers - Objections raised that
revision of rates/new allowances will result in an increased
financial burden and expenditure; the rules governing the
payment of allowances prescribed by each State for their
own administrative establishment must be followed; and
the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be
equivalent to those provided to other Government officers:
Held: Submissions urged on behalf of the States have been
considered in several previous judgments of this Court - Judicial
service is an integral and significant component of the functions of
the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to sustain
the rule of law - State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions
of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement,
are commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working
conditions for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement
emoluments made available to former members of the judicial
service - Members of the district judiciary are the first point of
engagement for citizens who are confronted with the need for
dispute resolution - The conditions in which judicial officers across
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
329
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
the country are required to work are arduous - The work of a
judicial officer is not confined merely to the working hours rendered
in the course of judicial duties in the court - That apart, members
of the district judiciary have wide ranging administrative functions
which take place beyond working hours, especially on week-ends
- Further, there is a need to maintain uniformity in the service
conditions of judicial officers across the country - Thus, the plea
that rules of each State must govern pay and allowances, lacks
substance - Judges are not comparable with the administrative
executive - They discharge sovereign state functions and just like
the Council of Ministers or the political executive and their service
is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive
which carries out the decisions of the political executive, judges
are distinct from judicial staff, and are thus comparable with the
political executive and legislature - Wholly inappropriate to equate
judicial service with the service of other officers of the State - The
functions, duties, restrictions and restraints operating during and
after service are entirely distinct for members of the judicial service
- Plea of equivalence rejected yet again. [Paras 13, 17 and 18]
Case Law Cited
All India Judges Association v Union of India [2002]
2 SCR 712 : (2002) 4 SCC 247; All India Judges
Association v Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 720; All India
Judges Association v. Union of India (II) [1993] 1 Suppl.
SCR 749 : (1993) 4 SCC 288; State of Maharashtra v
Tejwant Singh Sandhu SLP(C) 1041 of 2020; Bharat
Kumar Shantilal Thakkar v State of Gujarat & Anr. [2014]
4 SCR 1147 : (2014) 15 SCC 305 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
District Judiciary; Second National Judicial Pay Commission;
Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers;
Children Education Allowance; City Compensatory Allowance;
Concurrent Charges Allowance; Conveyance/transport allowance;
Earned Leave Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill
Area/Tough Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help
Allowance; Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance;
330
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Robe Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone
Facility; Transfer Grant; Higher Qualification Allowance; House Rent
Allowances; Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance; Maintenance;
Leave Travel Concession/Home Travel Concession; Medical
Allowance/Facilities; Sumptuary Allowance, Committee for Service
Conditions of the District Judiciary; Article 142.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT/EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE
JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.643 of 2015.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
With
SLP (C) Nos.6471-6473 of 2020, 29232 of 2018 and Contempt Petition
(C) Nos.711 of 2022, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 848 and 1338 of 2023 in Writ
Petition (C) No.643 of 2015.
Appearances for Parties
K.Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Kanti, Ms. Arti Gupta, MV
Mukunda, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Advs.
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Shailesh Madiyal, B.K. Satija, Dr. Hemant
Gupta, Barun Kumar Sinha, Saurabh Mishra, Amit Anand Tiwari,
A.A.Gs., K N Balgopal, Gurminder Singh, Adv. Gen./Sr. Advs.,
Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G., Gourab
Banerjee, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Wasim Quadri, Jaideep Gupta, Huzefa
Ahmadi, Sunil Kumar, V. Giri, Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sanjay Parikh,
Sr. Advs., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Dhruv
Sharma, VP Singh, Venkata Supreeth, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar
Yadav, Deepak Prakash, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta,
Varun Varma, Md. Apzal Ansari, Milind Kumar, Dr. Reeta Vasishta,
Mohd Akhil, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rajan Kumar Chourasia,
Ms. Sonali Jain, Chitvan Sinhal, Kartikaya Aggrawal, Abhishek
Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Pashupathi
Nath Razdan, Rushab Aggarwal, Sharath Nambiar, Astik Gupta,
Vaibhav Sabharwal, Japnish Singh Bhatia, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Anmol Chandan, Vatsal Joshi, Annirudh Sharma-II, Ishaan Sharma,
Kanu Agarawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar
Verma, Piyush Beriwal, Varun Chugh, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar,
Sarthak Karol, Harish Pandey, Apoorv Kurup, Shashwat Parihar, Mrs.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
331
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
Priyadarshini Priya, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mahesh Thakur, Mrs.
Geetanjali Bedi, Shivamm Sharrma, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek
Mohanty, Gagan Gupta, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Rucha A.
Pande, Manish M. Veeraragavan, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Ms. Pranjal
Chapalgaonkar, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Kunal Chatterji, Ms.
Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Ms. Nidhi Mittal,
Ms. Aparna Arun, Ms. Anchal, Akhil Hasija, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun,
Ms. Kavita Jha, Rajeev Kumar Jha, Aditeya Bali, P. I. Jose, Anupam
Mishra, James P. Thomas, Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Amit
Sharma, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mrs. Shashi
Pathak, Nikhil Goel, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra,
Aniket Patel, Anupam Raina, Sunando Raha, Nikhil Palli, Nishant
Kumar, Krishnanand Pandeya, Dev Pratap Shahi, Raghavendra
S. Srivatsa, T. G. Narayanan Nair, A. Radhakrishnan, Arjun Garg,
Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Niranjan Sahu, Umakant
Misra, Debabrata Dash, Abhijit Pattnaik, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ashok
Mathur, Mukul Kumar, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Sovon
Siddhanta, Saravanan A., J. Vasanthan, K.G. Kannan, Mukesh
K. Giri, Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Deepshikha
Sansanwal, Anil Shrivastav, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar
Bose, Saurabh Tripathi, Manish Kumar, Mahesh Kumar, Sumeer
Sodhi, Nikhilesh Kumar, Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Ms. Devika Khanna,
Mrs. V D Khanna, VMZ Chambers, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv
Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Ms. Deepanwita
Priyanka, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Payal Gupta, Shivang Jain, Ms.
Nitikaa Guptha, Ms. Monica Anand Kumar, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ravi
Bakshi, Sandeep Rana, Ms. M. Venmani, S. Gowthaman, Ms. Saima
Firoze, Abhisar Thakral, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Anando Mukherjee,
Shwetank Singh, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar,
Abraham Mathew, Rebin Vincent Gralan, Sunny Choudhary, Sandeep
Sharma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat
Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Ms. Yamini
Singh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Shrama, Ms. Rajkumari
Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Nirnimesh Dube,
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.
Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shibashish Misra, Karan Sharma,
Ajay Pal, Mohit Siwach, Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms.
Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Zinnea Mehta, Naman Jain, Sabarish
Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi
Kumar, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Ms. V Keerthana, Ms. Tanvi
332
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Anand, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sudarshan Singh
Rawat, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, S Sunil,
Sunny Sachin Rawat, Parijat Sinha, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,
Chirag M. Shroff, Aravindh S., Abbas, Ahantham Henry, Ahantham
Rahen Singh, Mohan Singh, Kumar Mihir, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, T.
V. Ratnam, Ankur Kashyap, Joydip Roy, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar
Yadav, Shreyash Bhardwaj, Karthik S.D., Uday B. Dube, Deepak
Prakash, Pawan Kr. Dabas, Kamal Singh Bisht, Raneev Dahiya,
Nachiketa Vajpayee, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Ms. Merlyn J. Rachel,
Ms. Vishnu Priya, Vardaan Kapoor, Rahul Lakhera, Rahul Suresh,
Aviral Saxena, Piyush Thanvi, Mohammed Imran, Gautam Narayan,
Ms. Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, Sujay Jain, K.V. Vibu Prasad,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ritwick Parikh, Karun Sharma, Ms.
Rajkumari Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar
Yadav, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Santhosh Kumar Puppala, Ms.
Shireesh Tyagi, Ms. Pranali Tayade Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Contents*
Objections by the Union Government and State
Governments:............................................................................ 6
Allowances recommended by the SNJPC ...................................13
1
House Building Advance (HBA) ...........................................13
2
Children Education Allowance (CEA) ..................................15
3
City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) ..................................16
4
Concurrent Charges Allowance ...........................................17
5
Conveyance/Transport Allowance (TP) ................................18
6
Dearness Allowance .............................................................20
7
Earned Leave Encashment ..................................................20
8
Electricity and Water Charges .............................................21
9
Higher Qualification Allowance ............................................22
10
Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance .....................................24
* Ed. Note : Pagination is as per the original judgment.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
333
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
11
Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance .............................25
12
House Rent Allowance and Residential Quarters ...............26
13
Leave Travel Concession(LTC)/Home Travel
Concession (HTC).................................................................31
14
Medical Allowance/Medical Facilities ...................................33
Fixed Allowance ...................................................................36
Medical Facilities and Reimbursement ................................36
15
Newspaper and Magazine Allowances ................................39
16
Risk Allowance .....................................................................40
17
Robe Allowance ...................................................................40
18
Special Pay for Administrative Work ....................................41
19
Sumptuary Allowance ...........................................................42
20
Telephone Facility ................................................................44
21
Transfer Grant ......................................................................46
Institutionalization .........................................................................47
1.
By its orders dated 27 July 2022, 5 April 2023 and 19 May 2023, this
Court has accepted the recommendations of the Second National
Judicial Pay Commission1, chaired by Justice P V Reddy, former
Judge of this Court of India on the revision of pay and pension for
judicial officers.
2.
The abovementioned orders have delineated inter alia the history
of the constitution of the SNJPC, and the principles underlying
judicial pay, allowances and pensions. The contents of the earlier
orders shall not be repeated here. This judgment pertains to the
allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired
judicial officers by the SNJPC. At this stage, it would be necessary
to note that save and except for three allowances, where there was
a modification, the allowances recommended by the First National
Judicial Pay Commission known as the Shetty Commission were
affirmed by this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of
India2. Thereafter, all allowances which were recommended by the
1
"SNJPC"
2
(2002) 4 SCC 247
334
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
subsequent pay commission, namely the Judicial Pay Commission3
called the Justice Padmanabhan Committee were accepted by this
Court in its decision reported as All India Judges Association v
Union of India4.
3.
Besides Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, all the State governments
and Union Territories have been given an opportunity to furnish their
objections to the allowances, as proposed by the SNJPC. Objections
have been filed on the record of this Court.
4.
In the course of hearing, the following counsel have appeared on
behalf of the States, or as the case may be, the Associations of
Judges :
S. No.
Name of the counsel
Appearing for
1
Mr Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv.
AIJA
2
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv
High Court at Calcutta
3
Mr Gopal Jha, Adv
All India Retired Judges
Association
4
Ms Gautami Yadav, Adv
Maharashtra State Judges
Association
5
Mr Sunny Choudhary
Madhya Pradesh
6
Mr Mukesh Kumar Verma
Andaman & Nicobar
7
MrJoydip Roy, Adv.
All India Judges Association
8
Ms Madhumita Bhattacharjee
West Bengal
9
Mr Sanjay Kumar Tyagi
Uttar Pradesh
10
Mr Shuvodeep Roy
Assam and Tripura
11
Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha
Bihar
12
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG
Tamil Nadu
13
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv
Tamil Nadu
14
Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv.
Punjab
15
Dr Manish Singhvi, Sr, Adv
Rajasthan
16
Mr V N Raghupathy, Adv
Karnataka
17
Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv
Gujarat
18
Mr. Sriharsha Pichara, Adv
Telangana
3
"JPC"
4
(2010) 14 SCC 720
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
335
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
19
Mr Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar
Manipur
20
Ms K Enatoli Sema
Nagaland
21
Ravi Bakshi, Adv
Himachal Pradesh
22
Mr Alim Anvar, Adv.
Kerala
23
Mr Amit Kumar, AAG
Meghalaya
24
Mr Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv
Uttarakhand
25
Mr Deepak Prakash, Adv
Kerala Judicial Officers
Association.
5.
In addition, we have had the benefit of considering intervention
applications by the State of Maharashtra.
6.
The Amicus Curiae has tendered a note summarizing the position.
The SNJPC considered a total of twenty-one allowances in its report.
These allowances are tabulated below:
1.
 House Building Advance
12. House Rent Allowance
a.
Residential Quarters
b.
HRA
c.
Furniture &
Air Conditioner
Allowance
d.
Maintenance
e.
Guest House
2.
Children Education Allowance
13.
Leave Travel Concession/
Home Travel Concession
3.
City Compensatory Allowance
14.
14. Medical Allowance
4.
Concurrent Charge allowance
15.
Newspaper and Magazine
Allowance
5.
Conveyance/Transport Allowance
16.
Risk Allowance
6.
Dearness Allowance
17.
Robe Allowance
7.
Earned leave encashment
18.
Special Pay for
Administrative Work
8.
Electricity and water charges
19.
Sumptuary Allowance
9.
Higher Qualification
20.
Telephone Facility
10.
Hill area/ Tough Location
Allowance
21.
Transfer Grant
11.
Home orderly/Domestic Help
Allowance
336
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
7.
Among the allowances which have been recommended by the SNJPC,
two new allowances are proposed while two additional components
are introduced to an additional allowance, namely :
(i)
Children Education Allowance (Serial No 2 in the tabulation);
(ii)
A Furniture and Air conditioner allowance and maintenance
as a part of the House Rent Allowance (Serial Nos 12C and
12D); and
(iii) Risk Allowance (Serial No 16 of the tabulation).
8.
The SNJPC has recommended that the City Compensatory Allowance
(Serial No 3 of the above tabulation) should be discontinued. In respect
of the Robe Allowance (Serial No 17), the SNJPC recommended
that such a demand would not be entertained by the next JPC.
Twelve out of the twenty-one allowances form the subject matter of a
recommendation either by the Sixth or, as the case may be, Seventh
Central Pay Commission either on the same or on revised rates.
9.
At the outset, it needs to be clarified that since the SNJPC has
proposed a revision of the existing rates as applicable, the States/
Union Territories shall continue to pay the allowances at the rates
which were applicable in respect of each allowance where the SNJPC
has recommended that the revised rates shall come into effect later
than 1 January 2016.
Objections by the Union Government and State Governments:
10. Before we deal with each individual allowance, it would be necessary
to record that, broadly speaking, the objections which have been
raised by the States, Union Territories and the Union Government
can be classified into three categories :
(a) The revision of rates or, as the case may be, the new allowances
will result in an increased financial burden and expenditure;
(b) The rules governing the payment of allowances prescribed by
each State for their own administrative establishment must be
followed; and
(c)
the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be
equivalent to those provided to other Government officers.
11. The submissions urged on behalf of the States have been considered
in several previous judgments of this Court, more specifically in relation
to the recommendations of the SNJPC itself. On the aspect of the
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
337
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
increased financial burden and additional expenditure, this Court, in
its judgment dated 5 April 2023, relied on the earlier decision in the
All India Judges Associationv.Union of India (II)5 andheld that
contentions regarding the financial implications of the directions are
liable to be rejected when the directions stem from the obligation
of the state. In other words, a plea of financial burden cannot be
raised to resist mandatory duties of the state. Providing necessary
service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions
is one such duty. The observations in that regard are contained in
paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 05 April 20236.
12. The same objection was dealt with in the subsequent judgment of
this Court dated 19 May 2023 at paragraph 26.7 The Court noted
that the issue of financial burden has been examined in these very
proceedings on at least three occasions and that this Court had
earlier expressed the hope that it will not be re-agitated in view of
All India Judges Association vs Union of India (II)8.
13. Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the
functions of the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to
sustain the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics
and in terms of the responsibilities which are cast upon the officers
of the District Judiciary to render objective dispensation of justice
5
(1993) 4 SCC 288.
6
19. The directions of this court applying a uniform multiplier and the corresponding financial implications
cannot be considered as excessive in view of the information extracted above. In All India Judges Associationv. Union of India (II), this court has earlier held that additional financial burden cannot be a
ground for review:
"16. The contention with regard to the financial burden likely to be imposed by the directions in question, is equally misconceived. Firstly, the courts do from time to time
hand down decisions which have financial implications and the Government is
obligated to loosen its purse recurrently pursuant to such decisions. Secondly,
when the duties are obligatory, no grievance can be heard that they cast financial
burden. Thirdly, compared to the other plan and non-plan expenditure, we find
that the financial burden caused on account of the said directions is negligible.
We should have thought that such plea was not raised to resist the discharge of the
mandatory duties. The contention that the resources of all the States are not uniform
has also to be rejected for the same reasons. The directions prescribe the minimum
necessary service conditions and facilities for the proper administration of justice. We
believe that the quality of justice administered and the caliber of the persons appointed
to administer it are not of different grades in different States. Such contentions are illsuited to the issues involved in the present case."
(emphasis supplied)
7
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.
8
(1993) 4 SCC 288.
338
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to citizens. The State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions
of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, are
commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working conditions
for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement emoluments
made available to former members of the judicial service. Members of
the district judiciary are the first point of engagement for citizens who
are confronted with the need for dispute resolution. The conditions
in which judicial officers across the country are required to work
arearduous. The work of a judicial officer is not confined merely to
the working hours rendered in the course of judicial duties in the
court. Every judicial officer is required to work both before and after
the court working hours. The judicial work of each day requires
preparation before cases are called out. A judicial officer continues to
work on cases which may have been dealt with in court, in terms of
preparing the judgment and attending to other administrative aspects
of the judicial record. That apart, members of the district judiciary
have wide ranging administrative functions which take place beyond
working hours, especially on week-ends including the discharge of
numerous duties in relation to prison establishments, juvenile justice
institutions, legal service camps and in general, work associated with
the Legal Services Act 1987.
14. The work of a Judge cannot be assessed solely in terms of their
duties during court working hours. The State is under an affirmative
obligation to ensure dignified conditions of work for its judicial officers
and it cannot raise the defense of an increase in financial burden or
expenditure. Judicial officers spend the largest part of their working
life in service of the institution. The nature of the office often renders
the incumbent incapacitated in availing of opportunities for legal work
which may otherwise be available to a member of the Bar. That
furnishes an additional reason why post-retirement, it is necessary for
the State to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in conditions
of human dignity. It needs to be emphasized that providing for judges,
both during their tenure and upon retirement, is correlated with
the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence, which is
necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of common citizens
in the rule of law, can be ensured and enhanced only so long as
judges are able to lead their life with a sense of financial dignity.
The conditions of service while a judge is in service must ensure a
dignified existence. The post-retirement conditions of service have
a crucial bearing on the dignity and independence of the office of
a judge and how it is perceived by the society. If the service of
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
339
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
the judiciary is to be a viable career option so as to attract talent,
conditions of service, both for working and retired officers, must offer
security and dignity.
15. As we shall indicate in the course of this judgment, the allowances
which have been provided by the SNJPC are basic allowances, most
of which rank on the same scale as what has been made available
to officers discharging executive functions in the AllIndia Services. It
is a matter of grave concern that though officers in the other services
have availed of a revision of their conditions of service as far back as
01 January 2016, similar issues pertaining to judicial officers are still
awaiting a final decision eight years thereafter. Judges have retired
from service. The family pensioners of those who have passed away
are awaiting resolution as well.
16. The second objection which has been raised on behalf of the States
is that the rules of the particular State must be followed in each
instance. This has again been dealt with in the judgment of this
Court dated 19 May 2023. The relevant extract is footnoted below.9
17. This Court has categorically held that there is a need to maintain
uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the
country. Thus, the plea that rules of each State must govern pay
and allowances, lacks substance.
18. The third objection as to the equivalence between judicial officers
and other Government officers has been elaborately analyzed
in paragraph 1410 of the judgment dated 05 April 2023 and in
9
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) 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 designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. ...."
10
14. 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
340
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
paragraphs 24, 2911 of the judgment dated 19 May 2023. Judges are
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 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."
(emphasis supplied)
Fourthly, the argument that a 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 appropriate to apply graded
IoR when SNJPC has chosen to uniformly apply the multiplier.
11
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, 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.
29. This Court in its Review Order dated 05.04.2023 has explained this position in the following words:
"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 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
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
341
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
not comparable with the administrative executive. They discharge
sovereign state functions and just like the Council of Ministers or the
political executive and their service is different from the secretarial
staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of
the political executive, judges are distinct from judicial staff, and are
thus comparable with the political executive and legislature. It would
be wholly inappropriate to equate judicial service with the service
of other officers of the State. The functions, duties, restrictions and
restraints operating during and after service are entirely distinct for
members of the judicial service. Consequently, the plea of equivalence
has been consistently rejected in the judgments of this Court. We
affirmatively do so again.
Allowances recommended by the SNJPC
19. We will now deal with each of the allowances as recommended by
the SNJPC.
1.
House Building Advance (HBA)
20. At the outset, it needs to be noted that the HBA forms a subject
matter of the recommendations of the Seventh CPC, FNJPC, JPC
and now the SNJPC. The SNJPC has recommended that :
(i)
HBA shall be made available to judicial officers in terms of the
House Building Advance Rules, 2017; and
(ii)
HBA shall be available to judicial officers also for the purchase
of a ready built house from private individuals subject to such
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."
(emphasis supplied)
342
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Government in
consultation with their respective High Courts.
21. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India has
issued an Office Memorandum12 dated 9 November 2017 providing
for the payment of HBA. The recommendations of the SNJPC are
based on the terms of this OM. However para 2(v) of the OM of the
Union Government contains the following stipulation :
"5. Outright purchase of a new ready-built house flat
from Housing Boards, Development Authorities and other
statutory or semi-Government bodies and from registered
builders i.e., registered private builders, architects house
building societies, etc. but not from private individuals."
22. The above clause in the OM indicates that the HBA can be availed
of for the outright purchase of a new or ready built house or flat from
public bodies as well as from registered private builders, architects
and societies but not from private individuals. The SNJPC, in the
course of its recommendations has observed as follows :
"6.
The Commission having given its consideration to the
same is of the view that the HBA advance to the Judicial
Officers shall be in terms of HBA Rules, 2017.