# ALL INDIAJUDGESASSON. & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - **Citation:** [2015] 3 S.C.R. 686 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2015-03-16 - **Case number:** I. A NO. 297 OF 2012 - **Bench:** Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifullaand Shiva Kirti Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-indiajudgesasson-others-v-union-of-india-others-30537 - **Pages:** 18 ## Headnote Judicial Service - Shetty Commission Report (as o approved by Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2009) - Implementation of-After recommendation of Central 6th Pay Commission - The States understood that Sheffy Commission recommendations were to operate only from 1-4-2003 to 31.12.2005 and after implementation of 6th Pay E Commission recommendations i.e. from 1.1.2006 recommendations by 6th Pay Commission alone were applicable - Held: Wherever Sheffy Commission recommendations came to be approved by Supreme Court, a higher scale of pay was recommended for different F categories - After introduction of Central 6th Pay Commission recommendations, revised pay should only correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended by Sheffy Commission for the non-judicial staff of subordinate G courts. H Allowing the appeal and the Interlocutory applications, the Court HELD: 1. Wherever in the Shetty Commission 686 ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 687 recommendation, depending upon the nature of job A performed by different categories of employees, a higher scale of pay came to be recommended for the nonjudicial staff os subordinate courts in the pre-existing scale that existed prior to 6th Pay Commission recommendation and on such higher pay scale the B corresponding revised scale of pay in the 6th Pay Commission recommendation as applicable from 01.01.2006, should have been continued and it was not permissible for the States to revert back to the earlier C scale of pay that existed under the 5th Pay Commission which was directed to be improved in the Shetty Commission recommendation for the purpose of applying the corresponding revised pay scale under the 6th Pay.Commission recommendation. [Para 16] [700- o C-E] 2. Therefore, it is directed that wherever under the Shetty Commission recommendation Which came to be approved by the order of this Court dated 07.10.2009, a E higher scale of pay was recommended for different categories, after the introduction of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, the revised pay should only correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended by the Shetty Commission which alone is the proper way F of implementing the recommendation of the Shetty Commission as approved by this Court. [Para 17] [700F-H] 3. So far as special benefits such as medical G allowance, special allowance, or TA/special pay are concerned such benefits should be continued to be maintained from 01.04.2003 up to 31.12.2005 and after 01.01.2006 also. So far as grant of one increment at the H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. .A initial rate in the pay-scale for all common category posts as recommended by the Shetty Commission is concerned, since th is Court in the order dated 07 .10.2009 directed that such benefit should be granted on the existing pay-scale and if such benefit had been granted B in the said manner, there would be no need for any further payment by way of such advance increments to be paid. However, if such one advance increment in the existing scale had not been granted, that should also be .c paid as a one time payment along with the pay and it is needless to state that fitment in the respective scale should be after the benefit of the said advance increment. [Para 18] [701-A-D] o 4. There is no need for making appointment of new E F Commission, inasmuch as all the grievances of the members of the applicants/appellants were duly considered by the Shetty Commission when it submitted its report in March, 2003. [Para 19) [701-E] 5. The direction in regard to the implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendation will hold good even for implementation of any future pay Commission recommendation. [Para 20) [703-C•D] ## Text A B c [2015] 3 S.C.R. 686 ALL INDIAJUDGESASSON. & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (I.A. N0.297 OF 2012 IN I.A. N0.71-A IN W.P. (C} N0.1022of1989 ETC.) MARCH 16, 2015 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAAND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) Judicial Service - Shetty Commission Report (as o approved by Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2009) - Implementation of-After recommendation of Central 6th Pay Commission - The States understood that Sheffy Commission recommendations were to operate only from 1-4-2003 to 31.12.2005 and after implementation of 6th Pay E Commission recommendations i.e. from 1.1.2006 recommendations by 6th Pay Commission alone were applicable - Held: Wherever Sheffy Commission recommendations came to be approved by Supreme Court, a higher scale of pay was recommended for different F categories - After introduction of Central 6th Pay Commission recommendations, revised pay should only correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended by Sheffy Commission for the non-judicial staff of subordinate G courts. H Allowing the appeal and the Interlocutory applications, the Court HELD: 1. Wherever in the Shetty Commission 686 ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 687 recommendation, depending upon the nature of job A performed by different categories of employees, a higher scale of pay came to be recommended for the nonjudicial staff os subordinate courts in the pre-existing scale that existed prior to 6th Pay Commission recommendation and on such higher pay scale the B corresponding revised scale of pay in the 6th Pay Commission recommendation as applicable from 01.01.2006, should have been continued and it was not permissible for the States to revert back to the earlier C scale of pay that existed under the 5th Pay Commission which was directed to be improved in the Shetty Commission recommendation for the purpose of applying the corresponding revised pay scale under the 6th Pay.Commission recommendation. [Para 16] [700- o C-E] 2. Therefore, it is directed that wherever under the Shetty Commission recommendation Which came to be approved by the order of this Court dated 07.10.2009, a E higher scale of pay was recommended for different categories, after the introduction of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, the revised pay should only correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended by the Shetty Commission which alone is the proper way F of implementing the recommendation of the Shetty Commission as approved by this Court. [Para 17] [700F-H] 3. So far as special benefits such as medical G allowance, special allowance, or TA/special pay are concerned such benefits should be continued to be maintained from 01.04.2003 up to 31.12.2005 and after 01.01.2006 also. So far as grant of one increment at the H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. .A initial rate in the pay-scale for all common category posts as recommended by the Shetty Commission is concerned, since th is Court in the order dated 07 .10.2009 directed that such benefit should be granted on the existing pay-scale and if such benefit had been granted B in the said manner, there would be no need for any further payment by way of such advance increments to be paid. However, if such one advance increment in the existing scale had not been granted, that should also be .c paid as a one time payment along with the pay and it is needless to state that fitment in the respective scale should be after the benefit of the said advance increment. [Para 18] [701-A-D] o 4. There is no need for making appointment of new E F Commission, inasmuch as all the grievances of the members of the applicants/appellants were duly considered by the Shetty Commission when it submitted its report in March, 2003. [Para 19) [701-E] 5. The direction in regard to the implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendation will hold good even for implementation of any future pay Commission recommendation. [Para 20) [703-C•D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A NO. 297 OF 2012 IN I.A. NO. 71-AIN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022 OF 1989 G Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH C. A. No. 2943 of 2015 & I. A. Nos. 329 of 2014 in W. P. H (C) No. 1022 of 1989 ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA . 689 Mahinder Singh, ASG, L. Nageswara Rao, R. A Venkataramani, Arun Bhardwaj, Suryanarayan Singh, Ajay Bansal, S. S. Shamshery, Ranjit Rao, AAG, Sanjay Parikh, Mamta Saxena, A. N. Singh, Ritwik Parikh, Anitha Shenoy, A. T. M. Sampath, TufailA. Khan, Jayant Mohan, S. WasimA. Qadri, Sunita Sharma, Gunwant Dara, Sudarshan Singh B Rawat, Prasenjit Keswani, B. V. Balaram Das, Anil Katiyar, D. S. Mahra, Guntur Prabhakar, Prerna Singh, G. N. Reddy, Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anil Shrivastav, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Rashmi C Srivastava, Prerna Singh, Rajiv Nanda, Preetesh Kapur, Jesal Wahi, Kabir Hathi, Hemantika Wahi, T. Mahipal, Nirnimesh Dube, Piyush Gaur, Dr. Monika Gusain (for Kamal Mohan Gupta), Asha Jain Madan, Pragati Neekhra, Naresh Kumar, Shilpa Dutta,Ashok Mathur, V. N. Raghupathy, Ramesh Babu D' M. R., Swati Selia, C. D. Singh, Asha Gopalan Nair {for Aniruddha P. Mayee), Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Z. H. Isaac Haiding, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, Pragyan Sharma, Heshu Kayina, P. V. Yogeshwaran, K. N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kumar E Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, Shibashish Mishra (for Kirti Renu Mishra), Kuldip Singh, Gaurav Yadav (for Jagjit Singh Chhbara), Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Ajay Chaudhary (for Milind Kumar) (for Ruchi Kohli), lmtiazAhmed, Sunil Kumar Jain, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, K. Vijay Kumar {for Arputham, F Aruna & Co.), B. Balaji, Rakesh K. Sharma, R. Shase, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Rashmi Srivastava, Abhisth Kumar, Som Raj Chowdhury, Sudeep Kumar, Gaurav Dhingra {for Ravi Prakash G Mehrotra), Anip Sachthey, Saakar Sardana (for Avijit Bhattacharjee), D. K. Sinha, Rachna Srivastava, Tapesh Kumar Singli, Anil K. Chopra, K. V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, V. G. Pragasam, S. J.Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Neelam Singh, Sameer Singh, Ashok K. Srivastava, Bharat Sangal, H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A G. S. Chatterjee, A. D. N. Rao, Neelam Jain, A. Venkatesh, Vaishali R., Sudipto Sircar, G. Swati Pathgotri,A. Subhashini, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Selvin Raja, Krishnanand Pandey, T G N. Nair, Sibo Shankar Mishra, Kshatrashal Raj, Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Kumar Shashank (for Parekh & Co.) for the B appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. As c the issues concerned in the above referred to I.As and Special Leave Petition are one and the same, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. D 2. Leave granted in SLP(C) No.737 of2012. 3. The appeal is directed against the Division Bench order of the Gujarat High Court dated 07.09.2011 by which the appellants prayer for direction to the State of Gujarat to implement the Justice Shetty Commission's Report in view of E the order passed by this Court by granting the pay-scale to non-Judicial Staff of Subordinate Courts in the State of Gujarat w.e.f. 01.04.2003 has been declined for the period after 31.12.2005. F 4. In I.A. No.297/2012, the applicants prayed for a direction to all the High Courts/ States/Union Territories to grant pay-scales and other benefits of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations to the judicial employees over and above what was recommended by Shetty Comf!1ission with a further G direction to implement the order of this Court dated 07.10.2009. The applicants have also prayed for a direction to appoint a separate Committee/Commission for the judicial employees to look into their pay-scales and service benefits, pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission recommendations in the H ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 691 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] same manner as was done for the judicial officers for whom A Justice Padmanabhan Committee was appointed in I.A. No.329 of 2014. The applicants also pray for an order to set aside that part of the Notification dated 13.09.2013, in particular, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 by which the pay revision and other benef~s recommended by the Justice Shetty B Commission were restricted to the period 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2005 and to hold the same as in violation of the order of this Court dated 07.10.2009. A further direction is sought for the employees of Industrial Courts and Labour Courts to grant C service benefits on the basis of what was granted to them by the Shetty Commission and that the 6th Pay Commission benefits should be granted over and above such pay-scale benefits in compliance of the order of this Court dated 07.10.2009 passed in I.A. No.71Ain W.P. (C) No.1022 of o 1989. 5. In respect of the appeal as well as the l.A.s, we heard Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the applicants and Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned E senior counsel forthe State of Gujarat, Mr. Ranjit Rao, learned A.A.G. for the State of U.P., Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the Union Territory of Puducherry and Mr. Maninder Singh, learnedA.S.G for Union of India. Though the prayers in the writ petition preferred before the State of Gujarat F as well as in the other two applications are worded differently, the sum and substance of the grievance of the appellants and the applicants are that the order of this Court dated 07 .10.2009 by which the recommendation of the Shetty Commission submitted in March, 2003 were approved and certain G directions issued, were not appropriately implemented. 6. To appreciate the grievances raised on behalf of the applicants as well as the appellants, the background of the H 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A Shetty Commission Report in respect of the staff of the subordinate judiciary as submitted before this Court requires to be stated. 7. By order dated 07.01.1998, this Court requested the B Shetty Commission to examine the service conditions of the staff of the Subordinate Courts and make a report about the steps to be taken in each State/Union Territory for improvement of the service conditions of the staff of the Courts. After the said order was passed, the Shetty Commission took upon itself C the task of examining the following issues : D "From the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court, it becomes clear that the Commission has to undertake the following: (i) To examine the service conditions of the Court Staff in each State/Union Territory and make a report (to the Supreme Court) about the steps, if any, required to be taken in each State/Union Territory for the improvement E of their service conditions; F G H (ii) To examine the facts and circumstances peculiar to any State/Union Territory placed before it by the concerned State/Union Territory; And (iii) To take note of the points of distinction, if any, between the States/ Union Territories which may be relevant for the purpose of making the report." (underlining is ours) 8. While carrying out the said exercise, the Commission, based on the material collected, submitted its report and ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 693 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] paraphrased the service conditions of different categories of A employees working in different establishments and submitted separate reports for different States. However, the nature of consideration and its ultimate recommendations and its reference to different categories of posts were more or less identical. We are not concerned with the various other areas B in which the recommendation of the Shetty Commission came · to be made. At the present juncture, we are only concerned with the grievances of the applicants as well as the appellants which pertain to the scale of pay with certain other benefits C like medical allowance, special allowance and special increment which were recommended in the Shetty Commission Report. In order to appreciate and understand the crux of the specific issue, the recommendation of the Shetty Commission which were made for the NCT of Delhi as a D sample can be noted. 9. The same has been set out at page 27 4 of the recommendations which is as under: "F1nancial Estimate on the Reconn1endations State: NCI' of Delhi 1·-- ·Catego.y ---r-~ I -------- ------ ----- ---- 1 2 aass.w (Centralised ~stem) Medical Allowance Net being To pay mt less than 17. 59 Grant of ~ven R'anclimal Saie to Pems etc., of the Rs.255()..3200 Estt a Achrn. Subordimte Judi!f Rs.100/-pm Cannot re estimaed Rs2610.3540 nw i I ---·--- ------~-· ·-- -----------L-----·------- J>dvem Sp!. All - Spl. All.