# ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2023] 7 S.C.R. 26
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-05-19
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-india-judges-association-v-union-of-india-ors-37474
- **Pages:** 59

## Headnote

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Judiciary - District Judiciary - Recommendations of the
Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC/Commission) on
pay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc.- Revision of pay
structure was accepted vide order dtd. 27.07.2022 - Review petitions
filed by some States and the Union were dismissed vide order dtd.
05.04.2023 - Benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be
given w.e.f 01.01.2016 - No change in percentage of pension for
retirees on or after 01.01.2016 - Multiplier of 2.81 to apply to
pensioners as well - For judicial officers retired before 01.01.2016,
the revised pension should be 50% of the last drawn pay - Necessary
amendments to be carried out in Service Rules of the Judicial Officers
across all jurisdictions - High Courts and the competent authorities
to bring the rules in conformity with the various recommendations
accepted by Supreme Court within 3 months - Compliance affidavits
be placed on record by the High Courts, the States and the Union
within 4 months - Vide orders dtd. 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, all
arrears of pay were already directed to be cleared by 30.06.2023 -
Compliance affidavits be filed by 30.07.2023 - Approved revised
rates of pension shall be payable from 01.07.2023 - For the payment
of arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral
benefits, following the Orders dtd. 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, 25%
be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and the
remaining 50% by 31.12.2023 - Matters to be listed for further
compliance on pay and pension.
Judiciary - District Judiciary - Principles evolved for judicial
pay, pension and allowances - Held: A unified judiciary requires
uniform designations and service conditions of judicial officers
across the country - Judges are not employees of the State but are
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
27
holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power - They
are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in
the executive - Parity cannot be claimed between staff of the
legislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicial
wing - The independence of the judiciary requires that pay of judicial
officers must be stand-alone and not compared to that of staff of
the political executive or the legislature - Independence of the
judiciary, which includes the District Judiciary, is part of the basic
structure of the Constitution - Access to an independent judiciary
enforces fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution - The essential function of all judicial officers in the
District Judiciary and judges of the High Court and this Court is
essentially the same - Principles discussed - Doctrine of inherent
powers - Constitution of India - Article 125, 221.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD:1.1 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
ON PAY
Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on payI.Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the
All India Pattern
In India, the judiciary is unified. The designations of judges,
therefore, ought to be uniform across the country. In this regard,
the First National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC) suggested
the following nomenclature to be adopted pan- India:i. Civil Judge
(Jr. Div); ii. Civil Judge (Sr. Div); iii. District Judge. A thorough
examination by the SNJPC revealed that these designations have
not been adopted in few states. This recommendation had been
accepted in the FNJPC by virtue of judgment in All India Judges'
Assn. (II) v. Union of India. This direction be followed by the High
Courts and all High Courts amend their designations in conformity
with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC. It is also relevant
to note that in light of the pay matrix suggested by the SNJPC,
without uniform designations, issues may arise in the future for
fitment of the different designations which are used in the different
states. Such complications ought to be avoided by this Court.
Thus, the recommend

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 132,090. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
 [2023] 7 S.C.R. 26
26
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643/2015)
MAY 19, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Judiciary - District Judiciary - Recommendations of the
Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC/Commission) on
pay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc.- Revision of pay
structure was accepted vide order dtd. 27.07.2022 - Review petitions
filed by some States and the Union were dismissed vide order dtd.
05.04.2023 - Benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be
given w.e.f 01.01.2016 - No change in percentage of pension for
retirees on or after 01.01.2016 - Multiplier of 2.81 to apply to
pensioners as well - For judicial officers retired before 01.01.2016,
the revised pension should be 50% of the last drawn pay - Necessary
amendments to be carried out in Service Rules of the Judicial Officers
across all jurisdictions - High Courts and the competent authorities
to bring the rules in conformity with the various recommendations
accepted by Supreme Court within 3 months - Compliance affidavits
be placed on record by the High Courts, the States and the Union
within 4 months - Vide orders dtd. 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, all
arrears of pay were already directed to be cleared by 30.06.2023 -
Compliance affidavits be filed by 30.07.2023 - Approved revised
rates of pension shall be payable from 01.07.2023 - For the payment
of arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral
benefits, following the Orders dtd. 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, 25%
be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and the
remaining 50% by 31.12.2023 - Matters to be listed for further
compliance on pay and pension.
Judiciary - District Judiciary - Principles evolved for judicial
pay, pension and allowances - Held: A unified judiciary requires
uniform designations and service conditions of judicial officers
across the country - Judges are not employees of the State but are
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
27
holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power - They
are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in
the executive - Parity cannot be claimed between staff of the
legislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicial
wing - The independence of the judiciary requires that pay of judicial
officers must be stand-alone and not compared to that of staff of
the political executive or the legislature - Independence of the
judiciary, which includes the District Judiciary, is part of the basic
structure of the Constitution - Access to an independent judiciary
enforces fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution - The essential function of all judicial officers in the
District Judiciary and judges of the High Court and this Court is
essentially the same - Principles discussed - Doctrine of inherent
powers - Constitution of India - Article 125, 221.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD:1.1 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
ON PAY
Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on payI.Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the
All India Pattern
In India, the judiciary is unified. The designations of judges,
therefore, ought to be uniform across the country. In this regard,
the First National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC) suggested
the following nomenclature to be adopted pan- India:i. Civil Judge
(Jr. Div); ii. Civil Judge (Sr. Div); iii. District Judge. A thorough
examination by the SNJPC revealed that these designations have
not been adopted in few states. This recommendation had been
accepted in the FNJPC by virtue of judgment in All India Judges'
Assn. (II) v. Union of India. This direction be followed by the High
Courts and all High Courts amend their designations in conformity
with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC. It is also relevant
to note that in light of the pay matrix suggested by the SNJPC,
without uniform designations, issues may arise in the future for
fitment of the different designations which are used in the different
states. Such complications ought to be avoided by this Court.
Thus, the recommendation of the Commission is accepted.
Consequently, the High Courts are directed to ensure that the
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
designation of judicial officers is uniformly the same. [Paras 4245][58-G; 59-A-E]
II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model
As the recommendation of the SNJPC is only to bring the
pay structure in conformity with the 7th Central Pay Commission,
there cannot be any objection on these recommendations. Thus,
it is directed that the pay structure of the Judicial Officers be
modified suitably, reflecting the recommendations suggested by
the SNJPC. [Para 46][59-F-G]
III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application
The pay of judicial officers is to be increased commensurate
to the pay of the Judges of High Courts. When the judges of the
High Courts were granted a multiplier of 2.81, the judicial officers
were also to be granted the same multiplier. This has been the
precedent set by the previous Judicial Pay Commissions and
endorsed by this Court repeatedly. This Court has already
rejected the objections of the States and the Union and
consequently accepted the multiplier/Index of Rationalization of
2.81 in Order dated 27.07.202223 and Order dated 05.04.202324.
The multiplier/index of rationalization as suggested by the SNJPC
be accepted. The pay of the judicial officers be increased as per
the Table-I annexed to the Order dated 27.07.2022. [Paras 4850][60-C-F]
IV. Increments
The recommendations of the Commission in so far as it
notionally grants the increment for the purposes of pension is
completely justified. As a consequence of the acceptance of the
recommendation, the calculation of pension must notionally
include the increment for the purposes of calculation of pension.
The High Courts are directed to amend the applicable rule to
state that the increment which becomes due to the judicial officer
on the day after his retirement may be notionally included in the
calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the vertical
ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-. [Para 55][61-G; 62-A-B]
V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay
Matrix System
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
29
The Commission recommended the formula and method
to ensure that the migration from the master pay scale to the pay
matrix system is smooth. The Commission has devised the
fitment/migration formula. While accepting this recommendation
for fitment/migration as amended by the Corrigendum dated
March 2021, the examples must form part of the relevant rules
that are required to be encoded by the High Courts, the States
and the Union. Therefore, the recommendation is accepted and
the authorities are directed to implement the same keeping in
mind the examples that have been given by the Commission.
[Paras 56, 59][62-C; 63-C]
VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016
The 7th Central Pay Commission came into force from
01.01.2016. However, the last pay revision of the judicial officers
was with effect from 01.01.2006. More than 17 years have passed
since the judicial officers have received a pay revision. Noting
this, the recommendation must be accepted by this Court. The
benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be given effect
to with effect from 01.01.2016. [Para 60][63-E-F]
VII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government
The recommendation of the SNJPC is that Dearness
Allowance may be paid at the rate fixed by the Central
Government. A fixed rate of Dearness Allowance would also
ensure that there is no lag in the accrual of the dearness allowance
to the judicial officers. A uniform rate of DA would achieve the
goals of uniformity as well as efficiency. In such circumstances,
the recommendation deserves acceptance. [Paras 62, 63][64-E,G;
65-A]
VIII. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div)
The Commission suggested that the 1st Assured Career
Progression be given to the Civil Judges (Jr Div) be granted on
the basis of relaxed norms of performance. The grant of 1st ACP
to Civil Judge (Jr Div) be given on the basis of relaxed norms
which may be devised by the High Courts, with reference to the
suggestions of the Commission. [Paras 64, 69][65-B; 66-D-E]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
All India Judges Association (III) v. Union of India,
(2002) 4 SCC 247 : [2002] 2 SCR 712; All India Judges
Association (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170;
All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC
494 - referred to.
IX. Delay in Grant of ACP
A perusal of the Commission's Report shows that, in many
states, the grant of ACP scale is delayed. The SNJPC's finding
that the lack of timely preparation and scrutiny of ACR is the
primary reason behind delay is concerning. ACRs are bound to
be done in a timely manner and without delay so as to ensure that
the whole judicial system is functioning in an efficient manner.
Accordingly, the High Courts may be directed to ensure that the
delay in making ACRs is avoided in the future. To avoid this
delay in the future, the Commission suggested that the process
of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 months in advance from the
date on which the judicial officers will be completing 5/10 years
and the financial benefits should be paid to the judicial officer
within a period of 6 months after the judicial officer steps into the
6th/11th year of Service. Therefore, the Commission
recommended that if grant of ACP is delayed for every year, one
additional increment shall be granted for every year of delay
subject to the adjustment with the ACP arrears. The
recommendations of the Commission are reasonable. Thus, the
recommendation merits acceptance. [Paras 70-73][66-E-G; 67A-C]
X. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of
Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts The recommendation of the
Tribunal that the pay revision be extended to judges of the
Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts merits acceptance as it is only
an extension of the law laid down by this Court. [Para 77][68-CE]
State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC
219 : [2008] 9 SCR 1078; State of Maharashtra v.
Labour Law Practitioners & Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688
: [1998] 1 SCR 793 - relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
31
XI. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra
The recommendation of the Commission is that the Judges
of the Family Court also be entitled to the benefit of Selection
Grade and Super Time Scale as well. The Commission further
recommends that quarters also be given to them from the general
pool of accommodation. The recommendation of the SNJPC is in
line with the same principles as laid down by this Court in State of
Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and State of Maharashtra v. Labour
Law Practitioners' Assn. for Labour Courts. When equal work is
done by the judicial officers, their pay and conditions of service
must also be equal. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission
is accepted. [Paras 79, 80][68-G; 69-A-B]
XII. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial
Magistrates (Second Class) and Special Metropolitan Magistrates
The recommendations and their modifications/acceptance
is tabulated.
1.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON
PENSION, GRATUITY ETC.
I.No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On or
After 01.01.2016
The Commission has not recommended any change in the
current percentage of pension, fixed at 50% of last drawn pay for
pension and 30% for last drawn pay for family pension. The FNJPC
had also recommended this position and this Court had accepted
it. Therefore, when no change is recommended, no real objections
can be raised regarding the recommendation. [Para 86][76-B-C]
II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be
50% of the Last Drawn Pay
After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the OnePerson Commission, the Commission recommended that for
judicial officers who retired before 01.01.2016, the revised
pension should be 50% of the last drawn pay of the post held at
the time of retirement. This is also unchanged in its formulation
and thus remains the same. [Para 87][76-D]
III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
The recommendation of the Commission is that the
multiplier of 2.81 will equally apply to pensioners as well as with
the recommendation on fitment in pay, the SNJPC has issued a
corrigendum on fitment in its Supplemental Report dated March
2021. This Corrigendum corrects arithmetical mistakes made in
the original report. Therefore, the fitment table must be construed
in accordance with the corrected table on fitment. The multiplier
which applies to pay must also apply to pension. Consequently,
the pensioners must be therefore fitted into the same scheme in
the pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted. [Paras
88-90][76-E-F, G-H; 77-A]
IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who
Retired Prior to 01.01.1996
The Commission noted that due to a discrepancy in the
report of the One-Person Commission, the pension granted to
judicial officers who retired after 2006 was not being given in
parity to those who retired before 2006. The recommendation of
the Commission is only in furtherance of parity. State
Governments have, in the past, been directed to undertake the
consequential re-fixation before. However, if such consequential
re-fixation has not been undertaken, the officers who had retired
prior to 1996, and who would have aged significantly would be
discriminated against. Such a situation ought to be avoided and
thus
the
recommendation
merits
acceptance.
This
recommendation is directed to be implemented immediately and
without delay. [Paras 91, 92][77-B-C, E-F]
V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating
pension
The recommendation, being the implementation of the
judgment of this Court, merits acceptance. [Para 93][78-B]
Government of NCT Delhi v All India Young Lawyers
Association (2009) 14 SCC 49 : [2009] 3 SCR 555 -
relied on.
VI. Recommendations on Family Pension
As regards family pension, the Commission has not
recommended any change in the existing percentage, i.e., 30%
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
33
of the last drawn pay. Therefore, this recommendation, as such,
does not warrant any further deliberation as it is the mere
continuation of the existing regime. The recommendation is
accepted. At the same time, the Commission has recommended
payment of family pension @ 30% to the eligible family member
after the death of the spouse. This benefit has been given in light
of Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similar
benefits to members of the central civil services. This
recommendation is also thus accepted as it has been granted to
members of the central civil services. The quantum of family
pension must be increased as per the same multiplier/index of
rationalization applicable for pension. This is because the same
factors which are applicable to pay and pension leading to their
increase also equally apply to family pension. The Commission
has also recommended the same. The recommendation is
accepted and it is directed that the quantum of family pension
also worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is
worked out. The last recommendation is that on the income limit
prescribed by States to be eligible for family pension. The
minimum limit prescribed by the Commission was Rs. 30,000/-.
This limit is reasonable but it must be left to the discretion of the
States to prescribe a higher limit which is more beneficial to the
judicial officers. Thus, the recommendation is accepted. [Paras
94-97][78-C-G]
VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/
Family Pension
On account of the additional assistance required on
increasing age, it has been the policy of the Central Government
to grant additional quantum of pension. The Commission has
recommended the payment of additional quantum of pension from
the age of 75 years onwards. Given that many of the States granted
this benefit from the age of 70 and the Commission recommended
the grant of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75.
This reasoning of the Commission merits acceptance. If States
have been granting more beneficial pension rates, it cannot be
denied to the judicial officers. Judicial Officers cannot be left worse
off than officers of the State. Therefore, this Court accepts this
recommendation. The Commission has further recommended that
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
this benefit be paid from 01.01.2016. As with the other similar
recommendations for the aspects of pay and pension, this
recommendation is accepted. If judicial officers have already been
granted a more beneficial regime and are moved to the regime
suggested by the Commission and accepted by the Court, no
recovery ought to be made against them. Consequently, it is left
to the States to continue the benefits upto the age of 75 years as
well. These recommendations are accordingly accepted. [Para
98, 100-102][78-H; 79-A, C-F]
VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity
The first recommendation on Gratuity by the Commission
is to bring the calculation of gratuity on par with Rule 50(1)(a) of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There cannot
be any dispute regarding this recommendation as it is to bring
about uniformity in conditions of service. Therefore, this
recommendation merits acceptance by this Court. The
Commission further recommended that the maximum limit for
retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which
shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. This
recommendation has also been made in accordance with the
Report of the 7th CPC, and the purpose of the same is to ensure
that the cost of living does not make the gratuity without purpose.
Therefore, this recommendation also merits acceptance by the
Court. The third recommendation is to make the
recommendations
effective
from
01.01.2016.
The
recommendations must come into force from 01.01.2016.
Consequentially, those judicial officers who retired after
01.01.2016 must also benefit from the acceptance of the Report.
Thus, the Commission has suggested that the differential gratuity
be paid to them subject to the revised maximum limit. This is
merely consequential and is accepted by this Court. The final
recommendation made by the Commission on the subject of
gratuity is that death gratuity be paid on the same lines as the 7th
CPC. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted as it is in
line with the already accepted principles laid down by this Court.
[Paras 103-106][79-G-H; 80-A-D]
IX. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of
Death
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
35
The Commission has recommended that where a judicial
officer dies while in service, the family pension and death cum
retirement gratuity as per the applicable rules is payable to the
spouse/dependent, of the deceased officer. The recommendation
of the Commission is in terms of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. This recommendation is reasonable and in
furtherance of the principle of uniformity across services.
Therefore, it merits acceptance by this Court. [Para 108][80-FG]
All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India (1993)
4 SCC 288 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 749; S.P. Gupta v.
Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 : [1982] SCR 365;
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of
India (1993) 4 SCC 441 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659;
Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, In re, (1998) 7 SCC
739 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400; Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2016) 5
SCC 1 : [2015] 13 SCR 1; Director, KPTCL v. CP
Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401; Anita
Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509 : [2016]
9 SCR 560 - relied on.
All India Judges Association. v. Union of India (2019)
12 SCC 314; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012)
6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305; Hussainara Khatoon
(I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 :
[1979] 3 SCR 169; Commissioner of Police Delhi v.
Registrar, Delhi High Court (1996) 6 SCC 323 : [1996]
7 Suppl. SCR 432; Mohd. Hussain v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi (2012) 9 SCC 408 : [2012] 10 SCR 480; All India
Judges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC
720; Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2021) SCC
Online All 1090; Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1969) 2 SCR 113; All India
Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 444; All
India Judges Assn. v. Union of India WP(C) No.1022/
1989 Order dated 14.07.2016; All India Judges Assn.
v. Union of India WP(C) No.1022/1989 Order dated
13.03.2018 - referred to.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Commonwealth ex rel Carroll vs. Tate, 274 A.2d. 193 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 749
relied on
Para 1, 15, 23, 24,
25, 27 & 43
[2002] 2 SCR 712
referred to
Para 2, 48 & 66
(2010) 15 SCC 170
referred to
Para 3, 66
(2019) 12 SCC 314
referred to
Para 5
[2012] 5 SCR 305
referred to
Para 13
[1982] SCR 365
relied on
Para 30
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659
relied on
Para 30
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400
relied on
Para 30
[2015] 13 SCR 1
relied on
Para 30
[1979] 3 SCR 169
referred to
Para 32
[1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 432
referred to
Para 32
[2012] 10 SCR 480
referred to
Para 32
[2016] 9 SCR 560
relied on
Para 32
(2010) 14 SCC 720
referred to
Para 48
(1969) 2 SCR 113
referred to
Para 62
(2022) 7 SCC 494
referred to
Para 67
[2008] 9 SCR 1078
relied on
Para 77, 80
[1998] 1 SCR 793
relied on
Para 77, 80
(2014) 14 SCC 444
referred to
Para 91
[2009] 3 SCR 555
relied on
Para 93
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.643
of 2015.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
37
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6471-6473 of 2020 And
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.711 of 2022, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 848 Of
2023 In Writ Petition (Civil) No.643 of 2015
Kuldeep Parihar, Dy AG, K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G., B.K. Satija,
Hemant Gupta, Barun Kumar Sinha, Nikhil Goel, Nachiketa Joshi, Gaurav
Dhama, Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.Gs., Gourab Banerjee, P. Vishwanatha
Shetty, V. Giri, Jaideep Gupta, Sanjay Parikh, Vinod Ghai, Dr. Manish
Singhvi, Sr. Advs., K. Parameshwar, (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Mayuri
Raghuvanshi, VP Singh, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha Rathore,
Subhro, Milind Kumar, Deepak Prakash, V. N. Raghupathy, Wasim Qadri,
Mohd Akhil, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rajan Kumar Chourasia,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Anmol Chandan,
Vatsal Joshi, Annirudh Sharma-(ii), Ishaan Sharma, Dr. N. Visakamurthy,
Kanu Agrawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kr. Verma,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Amrish Kumar, Mahesh
Thakur, Ms. Geetanjali Bedi, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ms. Shivani, Gopal
Jha, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,
Mahesh P. Shinde, Ms. Rucha A. Pande, M. Veeraragavan, Sandeep
Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee
Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Kirti
Dadheech, Ojaswa Pathak, Ms. Kavita Jha, James P. Thomas, Ravi
Sagar, P. I. Jose, Naresh K. Sharma, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar
Tripathi, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Nikhil Goel, Ms. Naveen Goel, Ms. Pragati
Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Nishant Kumar, Sunando Sir, Anupam
Raina, Krishnanand Pandeya, Harshit Gupta, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa,
Likhi Chand Bonsle, Rahat Bansal, Ms. Komal Mundhra, T. G. Narayanan
Nair, A. Radhakrishnan, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun
Srivastava, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Niranjan Sahu,
Debabrata Dash, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ashok Mathur, Mukul Kumar,
Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, M/s. Arputham Aruna
and Co, Mukesh K. Giri, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, K V
Girish Chowdary, T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee,
Ms. Niti Richhariya, Shuvodeep Roy, Sai Shashank, Deepayan Dutta,
Manish Kumar, Sumeer Sodhi, Devashish Tiwari, Gaurav Arora, Ms.
Sujata Kurdukar, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Payal Gupta, Samar
Vijay Singh, Shivang Jain, Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Ms. Purva, Arun Kumar
Jaiswal, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Amrita Verma, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ms.
Pratishtha Vij, Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Akshay C.
Shrivastava, Shailesh Madiyal, Vaibhav Sabharwal, Akshay Kumar, Rajiv
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Shankar Dvivedi, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, V. N. Raghupathy,
Manendra Pal Gupta, Mrs. Ansha Varma, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs.
Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Ms. Manicka Priya, Riddhi Bose, Sunny
Choudhary, Ankit Mishra, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Shreya Saxena, Ms. Yamini Singh, Sourav
Singh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ritwik Parikh, Ms.
Anupama Ngangom, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Nirnimesh Dube, Siddhesh
Kotwal, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Nihar Dharmadhikari,
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.
Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shibashish Misra, Ajay Pal, Mayank
Dahiya, Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Sameer
Abhyankar, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. Sugandh
Rathore, Sabarish Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu
Unnikrishnan, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, C Kranthi Kumar, Sriharsha
Peechara, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Ms. Pallavi, Duvvuri Subrahmanya
Bhanu, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sanjay Kumar, Sunil Kumar Tomar, Pawan,
Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Parijat Sinha, Ms.
Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Annant, Ms.
Arushi Mishra, Chirag M. Shroff, Aravindh S., Ms. Uma Bhuvaneswari
C., Abbas, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Ankur Kashyap, Rohit Rajershi, Aman
Bajaj, Gopal Jha, Gaurav Agrawal, Uday B. Dube, Ms. Arti Gupta, Ms.
Kanti, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
INDEX*
1.
Introduction to pay commissions .............................. 4
2.
The SNJPC's Report and the Orders of this Court . 5
3.
Submissions of Counsel.............................................. 7
4.
Principles Evolved for Judicial Pay, Pension
and Allowances.........................................................10
I. Uniformity in Designations and Service
Conditions ................................................................10
II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with
Political Executive .................................................. 11
*Ed. Note : Pagination in the Table is as per the original judgment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
39
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
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
5.0
Recommendations on pay........................................18
5.1
Orders of this Court on SNJPC Recommendations on
Pay .............................................................................21
5.2
Consideration of Recommendations on Pay ..........21
I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity
with the All India Pattern (Recommendation
44.1)...........................................................................21
II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix
Model (Recommendation 44.2, 44.3) ..................22
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
VI. Application of Recommendations from
01.01. 2016 (Recommendation 44.12) .................26
VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order
dated 27.07.2022 (Modification of
Recommendation No.44.13) ..................................27
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
VIII.DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central
Government (Recommendation 44.14) ...............27
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)....30
XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding
Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour
Courts (Recommendation 44.19) .........................31
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) ....................................... 32
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)...........................................................................40
II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers
should be 50% of the Last Drawn Pay ................40
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
41
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in
Pay Matrix (Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4) ....41
IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers
who Retired Prior to 01.01.1996
(Recommendation no. 39.5) ..................................41
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) .......................42
VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum
 Pension/Family Pension (Recommendation
Nos. 21.1 to 21.4) ....................................................43
VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation
Nos. 21.1 to 21.4) ....................................................44
IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age.........45
X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in
Case of Death ..........................................................45
XI. Recommendations on Assistance to
Pensioners ................................................................45
XII.Recommendations on Abolition of New
Pension Scheme ......................................................46
8. Consequential Directions...............................................50
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. INTRODUCTION TO PAY COMMISSIONS
1. The District Judiciary1 is the backbone of the judicial system.
Vital to the judicial system is the independence of the judicial officers
1No 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
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 6th 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 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.
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.
4All India Judges Association (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
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 Member5. Pursuant to the order of this
Hon'ble Court, the Government of India, by its Resolution dated
10.11.20176, 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 postretirement 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 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.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
(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 regionwise 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., 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
45
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
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.