SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The Petitioner is seeking review and improvement of the

service conditions of the judicial officers throughout the

country by way of the present petition under Article 32.

The Petitioner in the instant case is All India Judges

Association (AIJA) whose members are judges of the

subordinate judiciary from all over India and was formed

and registered in 1985. The petitioner was formed with the

primary objective of improving the service conditions of

the judges in sub-ordinate judiciary. Ever since its

inception, the AIJA has striven towards achieving its

objective and has approached this Hon’ble Court on

several occasions in the past by filing writ petitions raising

issues of common good and for the benefit of the

subordinate judiciary as a whole. In past, this Hon’ble

Court had directed for constitution of the Hon’ble Justice

Shetty Commission and Hon’ble Justice Padmanabhan

Commission for recommending improvements in the

service conditions of judicial officers. These commissions

have favourably shaped the service conditions of all the

judges in sub-ordinate judiciary in compliance with the

directions by this Hon’ble Court. Thus, the efforts of AIJA

are aimed towards the welfare of its members and not of

any particular individual. In this context, it is submitted

that the instant petition is being filed so that the judicial

officers are granted their essential and basic service

conditions.

Article 50 of the Constitution of India incorporates the

concept of separation of judiciary from the executive in the

public services of the State and the distinction between

the two has to be maintained.

Importantly, though the periodic exercise of constituting a

Pay Commission for the executive in public service has

been undertaken by the Central/State Government and

pay scales are being reviewed, no such mechanism has

been put in place for the judicial services despite specific

directions by this Hon’ble Court to this effect. This Hon’ble

Court in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of

India 1992 (1) SCC 119 was pleased to direct that “as

and when such Commissions or committees are set up in

the states and Union Territories hereafter, they separately

examine and review pay structure of judicial officers

keeping in view all relevant aspects.” (p.199 SCC).

However, these directions by this Hon’ble Court were

sought to be reviewed by the Union of India and the

States. This Hon’ble Court accordingly in All India Judges

Association Vs. Union of India 1993 (4) SCC 288

while disposing off the review petitions, was pleased to

hold that merely because Article 309 of the Constitution of

India gives power to the executive and the legislature to

prescribe the service conditions of the judiciary, and that

after the council of States make the necessary declaration

under Article 312 of the Constitution of India, the

Parliament is empowered to create All India Judicial

Service, it does not mean that the judiciary should have no

say in the matter. It would be against the spirit of the

Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in that behalf

for theoretically it would not be impossible for the

executive or the legislature to turn and twist the tail of the

judiciary by using the said power. Such a consequence

would be against one of the seminal mandates of the

Constitution namely to maintain the independence of

judiciary and no price is too heavy to secure it. This

Hon’ble Court had then held that it was for this reason that

the practice of entrusting the work of recommending the

service conditions of members of subordinate judiciary to

the same Pay Commission which recommended the

service conditions of the administrative services, required

reconsideration. This Hon’ble Court has ruled in All India

Judges Association v Union of India and ors 1993 4

SCC 288 that the service conditions of the Judicial Officers

should be laid down and reviewed from time to time by an

independent Commission exclusively constituted for the

purpose, and the composition of such Commission should

reflect adequate representation on behalf of the judiciary.

The question with regard to pay scales in respect of the

members of the judicial service had however been initially

referred to the 5th Central Pay Commission. However, in

view of the directions as above, the Govt. of India by a

resolution dated 21/03/1996, constituted the First National

Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty, a former Judge of this

Hon’ble Court. Subsequently, by an amendment made on

24/10/1996, the reference to the 5th Central Pay

Commission with regard to the fixation of Pay Scales of the

Judicial Officers was deleted.

The 5th Central Pay Commission submitted its report on

30/01/1997, which was accepted by the government on

30/09/1997 and was made applicable w.e.f. 01/01/1996.

The First National Judicial Pay Commission (‘Shetty

Commission’ for short) submitted its report on 11/11/1999

wherein after taking into consideration the

recommendations which have been made by the 5th

Central Pay Commission and the pivotal role of the

subordinate judiciary a master pay scale was evolved. The

Shetty Commission came to the conclusion that the

number on the Pay Scale should be equal to the number of

clearly identifiable levels of responsibility also taking into

consideration the scope for promotional avenues. It is a

matter of record that even the recommendations made by

the Shetty Commission have been resisted on one pretext

or the other including the alleged plea of financial burden.

Finally, this Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated

21/03/2002 vide All India Judges Association Vs. Union

of India 2002 (4) SCC 247 was pleased to accept the

recommendations of the Shetty Commission subject to

certain modifications by this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble

Court also directed that the Pay Scale so approved shall be

w.e.f. 01/07/1996.

Though this Hon’ble Court in its review judgment (as

above) had directed that the service conditions of the

Judicial Officers should be laid down and reviewed from

time to time by an independent Commission exclusively

constituted for the purpose, inspite of the Central

Government constituting the subsequent Pay Commission

namely the 6th Central Pay Commission, no such separate

independent Commission was constituted to review the

service conditions of the subordinate judiciary as directed

by this Hon’ble Court. The Shetty Commission in its report

while arriving at the Pay Scales recommended for the

subordinate judicial service, had noted that while fixing the

maximum of the master pay scale, it had been constrained

by the vertical cap of the salaries of the High Court Judges.

In other words, the district judges could not get more

salary than the High Court Judges, whose salaries were

statutorily fixed. It was however, recommended that as

and when the salaries of High Court Judges are raised, the

salary of the Judicial Officers should also be increased by

maintaining the ratio which the Shetty Commission had

recommended. The salary of the High Court Judges was

revised by the High Court and Supreme Court Judges

(salaries and conditions of service) Amendment Ordinance,

2009, published in the Gazette of India vide notification

dated 09/01/2009. Subsequently, this became an Act of

the Parliament. Since the Pay Scales admissible to the

subordinate judiciary saw no revision this Hon’ble Court

recognizing that the pay scales required urgent upward

revision and vide its order dated 28/04/2009 in All India

Judges Association Vs. Union of India 2011 (12) SCC

678, was pleased to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice E.

Padmanabhan, Retd. Judge of the Madras High Court to

make suitable recommendations having regard to the

recommendations already made by the Shetty Commission

in respect of the pay scales and allowances and certain

other perquisites of the judicial officers.

Justice E. Padmanabhan submitted his report dated

17/07/2009 and made several determinations on the basis

of the First National Judicial Pay Commission Report

consequent to revision pay scale of the High Court Judges.

The Commission however, recommended that its

recommendations be implemented w.e.f. 01/01/2006 i.e.

the date from which the recommendations made by the

6th Central Pay Commission were implemented by the

Central Government. However, the Commission in para VIII

of its Report noted that several demands made by the

Judicial Officers and Pensioners fell outside the scope of

reference made to the Commission. All these demands, as

the report of the Commission would depict, pertained to

the various service conditions of the Judicial Officers but

were not considered by the Commission since these were

found to be beyond the scope of limited reference made to

the Commission. The terms of reference of the said

Padmanabhan Commission were severely restricted on

account of it being limited to determine the pay scale of

judicial officers on the basis of recommendations of the

Shetty Commission. The Hon’ble Commission in para 74 of

its report thus recorded the following:

… Since most of the demands so made are

outside the scope of reference made to this

Commission by the Hon’ble Court, this

Commission has enumerated those demands,

which require consideration either by this

Hon’ble Court or by separate Judicial Pay

Commission or at the appropriate level and they

are given hereunder:…

The Commission in Part VIII of its report, has made

reference to at least 56 essential conditions of service

which could not be reviewed by it since they were outside

the scope of reference to the Commission. In Part IX the

Commission recorded the following demands which do not

even cost the exchequer:

i) Five Days a week.

ii) Provision for Transit/Guest House facility.

iii) Issuance of Car stickers for personal cars of

Judicial officers as also for providing red light atop

the vehicles of the particular level of Judicial

Officers.

iv) Issue of Seniority–Rota-Quota.

v) Separate Forum (State Level and National Level)

for settlement of various administrative and

service grievances/problems.

vi) Welfare activities for the fraternity in general.

vii) Advance of salary for meeting contingencies – 15

days salary prayed.

viii) Protocol to Distt. Judiciary – to be maintained as

per their status as executives.

ix) Priority in reservations/bookings: alongwith

transportation, quest houses, rest houses etc.

x) Identity Cards to Pensioners and Family

Pensioners to avail medical facilities etc.

xi) II ACP alongwith fixation of seniority to be

finalized promptly.

xii) Change of nomenclature of Civil Judge (Junior

Division) to Civil Judge.

Thus, several essential conditions of service of the judicial

officers are left to be addressed till date. It is in view of

these, the Hon’ble Commission too, in Para 75 of its report

has stressed upon the need to have a pay commission for

judicial officers to be periodically constituted

simultaneously with the Pay Commission constituted for

the employees of the Central Government. To quote from

the words of the Commission:

“appointment of a Judicial Pay Commission

should normally be made when Central Pay

Commission is constituted and notified.”

In exercise of its executive power under Article 73 of the

Constitution of India, the Central Government constitutes

Pay Commissions generally after a gap of every 10 years

for periodic revision of pay scales admissible to Central

Government employees. However, no such mechanism has

been devised for periodic revision of pay and allowances

admissible to the members of the subordinate judiciary

inspite of specific directions by this Hon’ble Court and the

recommendations for such periodic Pay Commission made

by the First National Judicial Pay Commission and the

Padmanabhan Commission as well. It may be noted that

the Central Government has now notified constitution of

the 7th Pay Commission for the Central Government

Employees, but no such exercise has been undertaken to

revise the conditions of service of the members of

subordinate judiciary. Thus, there has been consistent and

patent neglect towards the service conditions of Judicial

Officers despite the repeated directions by this Hon’ble

Court and its anguish there against.

The Petitioner has made several representations to the

respondents requesting them to review the service

conditionsof the judicial officers. The Petitioner made a

representation to the Cabinet Secretary of the Government

of India on 13/5/2015 but representation was rejected by

Government of India on 23/6/2015 on the ground that the

service conditions of the judicial officers of State Public

Judicial are not within the competence of Central

Government and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been

seized of the matter.

Hence this writ petition is being filed.

The relevant events preceding the present petition,

chronologically, are as under:

13/11/1991 This Hon’ble Court delivered its judgmentin

All India Judges Association v. Union

Of India, 1992 (1) SCC 119(“first AIJA

Case” for short) issuing directions for

improvement of the service conditions of

the members of subordinate judiciary. The

directions were as follows:

1. “An All India Judicial Service

should be set up and the Union of

India should take appropriate

steps in this regard.

2. Steps should be taken to bring

about uniformity in designations

of officers both in civil and

criminal side by 31/03/1993

3. Retirement age of judicial officers

be raised to 60 years and

appropriate steps are to be taken

by 31/12/1992.

4. As and when the pay

commission/committees are set

up in the States and Union

territories, the question of

appropriate pay scales of judicial

officers be specifically referred

and considered.

5. A working library at the residence

of every judicial officer has to be

provided by 30/06/1992. Provision

for sumptuary allowance as stated

has to be made.

6. Residential accommodation to

every judicial officer has to be

provided and until State

accommodation is available,

government should provide

requisitioned accommodation for

them in the manner indicated by

31/12/1992. In providing

residential accommodation,

availability of an office room

should be kept in view.

7. Every District Judge and Chief

Judicial Magistrate should have a

State vehicle, judicial officers in

sets of five should have a pool

vehicle and others would be

entitled to suitable loans to

acquire two wheeler automobiles

within different time limits as

specified.

8. In-service institute should be set

up within one year at the Central

and State or Union territory level.”

24/08/1993 This Hon’ble Court in All India Judges’

Association and Ors. Etc. v. Union of

India and Ors etc., - 1993 (4) SCC288

rejected the objections raised by the Union

of India and States while reviewing the

above mentioned judgment in the first AIJA

case and held that:

(i) “Each of the general and special

objections of Union of India and

States/ Union territories was dealt

with and rejected. The distinction

between judicial and other services

specifically emphasized.

(ii) The service conditions of judicial

officers should be laid down and

reviewed from time to time by an

independent commission

exclusively constituted for the

purpose, and the composition of

such commission should reflect

adequate representation on behalf

of the judiciary.

(iii) By giving the directions in question,

this Court has only called upon the

Executive and the Legislature to

implement their imperative duties.

The Courts do issue directions to

the authorities to perform their

obligatory duties whenever there is

a failure on their part to discharge

them.... The further directions

given, therefore, should not be

looked upon as an encroachment

on the powers of the Executive and

the Legislature to determine the

service conditions of the judiciary.

They are directions to perform the

long overdue obligatory duties

...The directions are essential for the

evolvement of an appropriate national

policy by the Government in regard to

the judiciary's conditions". The

directions issued are mere aids and

incidental to and supplemental of the

main direction and intended as a

transitional measure till a

comprehensive national policy is

evolved, (Para 6).

(iv) The question of financial burden likely

to be imposed is misconceived and

should not be raised to discharge

mandatory duties:

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

similar 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 ill-suited

to the issues involved in the present

case.

(v) The directions given in the main

judgment dated 13/11/1991 were

maintained except as regards the

following:

a. The legal practice for of 3 years

should be made one of the

essential qualifications for

recruitment to the judicial posts

at the lowest rung in the judicial

hierarchy.Further, wherever the

recruitment of the judicial

officers at the lowest rung is

made through the public service

commission, a representative of

the High Court should be

associated with the selection

process and his advice should

prevail unless there are strong

and cogent reasons for not

accepting it, which reasons

should be recorded in writing.The

rules for recruitment of the

judicial officers should be

amended forthwith to incorporate

the above directions.

b. The direction with regard to the

enhancement of the

superannuation age is modified

as follows:While the

superannuation age of every sub-

ordinate judicial officer shall

stand extended upto 60 years,

the respective High Courts

should, as stated above, assess

and evaluate the record of the

judicial officer for his continued

utility well within time before he

attains the age of 58 years by

following the procedure for the

compulsory retirement under the

service rules applicable to him

and give him the benefit of the

extended superannuation age

from 58 to 60 years only if he is

found fit and eligible to continue

in service. In case he is not found

fit and eligible, he should be

compulsorily retired on his

attaining the age of 58 years.The

assessment in question should

be done before the attainment of

the age of 58 years even in cases

where the earlier superannuation

age was less than 58 years.

c. The direction for granting

sumptuary allowance to the

District Judges and Chief Judicial

Magistrates stands withdrawn for

the reasons given earlier.

d. The direction with regard to the

grant of residence-cum-library

allowance will cease to operate

when the respective State

Government/Union territory

administration start providing the

Courts, as directed above, with

the necessary law books and

journals in consultation with the

respective High Courts.

e. The direction with regard to the

conveyance to be provided to the

District Judges and that with

regard to the establishment of

the training institutes for the

Judges have been clarified by us

in paragraphs 45(vii) & 49(viii)

respectively. It is the principal

district Judge at each district

headquarter or the metropolitan

town as the case may be, who

will be entitled to an independent

vehicle. This will equally apply to

the Chief Judicial Magistrate and

the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate. The rest of the

Judges and Magistrates will be

entitled to pool-vehicles-one for

every five Judges for transport

from residence to Court and back

and when needed, loans for two

wheeler automobiles and

conveyance allowance. The State

Governments/Union territory

administrations are directed to

provide adequate quantity of free

petrol for the vehicles, not

exceeding 100 liters per month,

in consultation with the High

Court.

f. In view of the establishment of

the national judicial academy, it

is optional for the States to have

their independent or joint

training judicial institutes.

g. In view of the time taken to

dispose of the review petitions,

following orders were passed:the

time to comply with the direction

for bringing about uniformity in

hierarchy, designations and

jurisdictions of judicial officers on

both civil and criminal sides is

extended upto 31/03/1994;the

time to comply with the

directions to provide law books

and law journals to all Courts is

extended upto 31/12/1993 failing

which, the library allowance

should be paid to every judicial

officer with effect from

01/01/1994, if it is not paid

already;the time to provide

suitable residential

accommodation, requisitioned of

Government, to every judicial

officer is extended upto

31/03/1994;the time to comply

with the rest of the directions is

maintained as it was directed by

the judgment under review;

h. Regarding uniform pay scales,

the review judgment emphasized

the following:We have already

discussed the need to make a

distinction between the political

and the administrative executive

and to appreciate that parity in

status can only be between

Judges and the political executive

and not between Judges and the

administrative executive. Hence,

the earlier approach of

comparison between the service

conditions of the Judges and

those of the administrative

executive has to be abandoned

and the service conditions of the

Judges which are wrongly linked

to those of the administrative

executive have to be revised to

meet the special needs of the

judicial service. Further, since the

work of the judicial officers

throughout the country is of the

similar nature, the service

conditions have to be uniform.

We have also emphasized earlier

the necessity of entrusting the

work of prescribing the service

conditions for the judicial officers

to a separate pay commission

exclusively set up for the

purpose. Hence, we reiterate the

importance of such separate

commission and also of the

desirability of prescribing uniform

pay scales to the Judges all over

the country. Since such pay

scales will be the minimum

deserved by the judicial officers,

the argument that some of the

States may not be able to bear

the financial burden is irrelevant.

The uniform service conditions as

and when laid down would not, of

course, affect any special or

extra benefits which some States

may be bestowing upon their

judicial officers.”

24/10/1996 First National Judicial Pay Commission was

constituted by the Government of India

pursuant to the directions issued by this

Court in Second AIJA Case. The Commission

was headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.J.

Shetty. The terms of reference were as

follows:

A. “To evolve the principles that would

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/UTs

taking into account the total packet of

benefits available to them and make

suitable recommendations having

regard, among other relevant factors,

to the existing relativities in the pay

structure between the officers

belonging to subordinate judicial

service visa-vis other civil servants.

C. To examine and recommend in respect

of minimum qualifications, age of

recruitment, method of recruitment,

etc., for judicial officers. In this

context, the relevant provisions of the

constitution and directions of the

Supreme Court in All India Judges

Association case and other cases may

be kept in view.

D. To examine the work methods and

work environment as also the variety

of allowances and benefits in kind that

are available to judicial officers in

addition to pay and to suggest

rationalization and simplification

thereof with a view to promoting

efficiency in judicial administration,

optimizing the size of the judiciary

etc."

11/11/1999 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shetty Commission

submitted its report with the following

recommendations:

1. The High Courts were required to

frame the rules specifying particular

age of retirement and it was also

recommended that the procedure

prescribed for writing the

confidential reports by the self-

assessment process was better and

more transparent and should be

adopted by the High Courts for

judicial officers.

2. The commission recommended

appropriate nomenclatures to be

given to the judicial officers. The

recommendation was that they

should be called "civil judge" in

place of "civil judge (junior

division)" and "senior civil judge" in

place of "civil judge (senior

division)".

3. It further gave recommendation

with regard to equation of posts of

the chief metropolitan magistrate

and chief judicial magistrate. While

it recommended that the chief

judicial magistrate should be in the

cadre of civil judge (senior division),

in respect of chief metropolitan

magistrate, it recommended that it

should be placed in the cadre of

district judge. According to the

learned amicus curiae, the chief

metropolitan magistrate and chief

judicial magistrate must be in the

same cadre equivalent to civil judge

(senior division) and that it should

be at par with each other.

4. Recommendations were made with

regard to recruitment to the cadre

of civil judge (junior division)-cum-

magistrate first class as well as

recruitment to the post of civil

judge (senior division). The

recommendation in this regard was

that the posts of civil judge (senior

division) should only be filled by

promotion.

5. The commission also made

recommendation with regard to

appointment to the post of district

judge which includes the additional

district judge in the higher judicial

service. It pointed out some

problems which had arisen as a

result of direct recruitment to the

post of district judges, the problem

really being with regard to the inter

se seniority amongst them.

6. The commission also recommended

that serving judges who were

between 35 and 45 of age should

be made eligible for direct

recruitment to the higher judicial

service which consists of the posts

of district judges and additional

district judges and for this purpose,

if necessary, there should be an

amendment to Article 233(2) of the

Constitution of India.

7. With regard to inter se seniority

between direct recruits and

promotees, the commission

recommended that the promotees

be given weightage of one year for

every five years of judicial service

rendered by them subject to a

maximum of three years.

8. The report also recommended

steps being taken for judicial

education and training.

14/12/1999 This Hon’ble Court passed an order in the

first AIJA case directing the State

Governments and the Union Territories to

send their responses to the Union of India

so that it could co-relate the responses and

indicate its own stand on the

recommendations of Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Shetty Commission.

08/02/2002 This Hon’ble Court passed a Judgment and

order in All India Judges Association

and Ors. v. Union of India, 2002 (4)

SCC 247(third AIJA case) issuing directions

in the Writ Petition filed on behalf of the

Petitioner for review of the working

conditions of the members of the Sub

ordinate Judiciary throughout the country.

While passing the above mentioned order

this Hon’ble Court rejected the contention

raised by the Respondents therein about

the Financial Burden and directed the

Government to implement with the

recommendations of Justice Shetty

Commission in the case of. The relevant

extract of the above mentioned judgment

is as follows:

1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shetty

Commission has taken into

consideration the recommendations

of fifth central pay commission and

the pay scales recommended by it

are just and reasonable.

Considering the years of service put

in by the judicial officers at different

stages, the parity in the scales of

pay recommended by the

commission for the judicial officers

with the scales of pay of the I.A.S.

Officers is not by and large

disturbed. (Para 19)

2. However the entire expenditure on

account of the recommendation of

the Justice Shetty Commission be

borne by the respective states.

(Para 22)

3. Existing vacancies in the sub-

ordinate courts at all levels should

be filed. There has to be certain

minimum standards, objectively

adjudged for officers who are to

enter the higher judicial service as

additional district judges and

district judges. Ratio of 75%

appointment by promotion and 25%

by direct recruitment to the higher

judicial service is maintained. As far

as the appointment by promotion is

concerned 50% must be filled by

promotion on the basis of principle

of merit-cum-seniority and passing

a suitable test and 25% by strictly

on the basis of merit through

limited competitive examination of

civil judges(senior division) having

not less than 5 years of qualifying

service.(Para 26)

4. Recommendations for increase in

retirement age from 60 to 62 years

not acceptable. (Para 25)

5. Judicial officers provided with

official accommodation will not be

entitled to house rent allowances.

50% of the electricity and water

charges of the residence of judicial

officers to be borne by the State

Government. Even fresh law

graduates without any practice

should be eligible to enter judicial

service provided training of one or

two years. Chief judicial magistrates

and chief metropolitan magistrates

equated and placed in the cadre of

senior division sub-judge. Revised

pay scales to be paid w.e.f.

01.07.1996. (Para 34)

This Hon’ble Court further noted in this

decision that –

The Govt. of India has erred in

equating the district judge at the

entry with the scales of pay of a

Selection Grade IAS Officer. The

proper equation should have been

between the District Judge at entry

Level with a super time scale of an

IAS Officer; it is on that basis that

the scale of pay should be

determined upwards and

downwards.

It was also observed by the Court that –

It is only the District Judge (Super

Time Scale) as recommended by

the Justice Shetty commission

which is comparable with the last

scale of an IAS Officer.

28/04/2009 Hon’ble Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan

Commission was appointed by the Order of

this Hon’ble Court in the third AIJA case to

determine the pay scales of all the Judicial

Officers etc. throughout the country on the

basis of Justice Shetty Commission’s

Report. This Commission was directed to

determine scales of pay, allowances,

perquisites etc. of Judicial Officers in the

cadre of (i) Civil Judges (Junior Division), (ii)

Civil Judges (Senior Division), (iii) District

Judges (Entry Grade), (iv) District Judges

(Selection Grade) and (v) District Judges

(Super Time Scale) having regard to the

recommendations already made by the

Hon’ble Justice Shetty Commission in

respect of the pay scales, allowances and

other perquisites of the Judicial Officers,

and so also revised Pensionary benefits

payable to Judicial Pensioners.

17/07/2009 Justice Padmanabhan Committee

submitted its report. However, various

demands made by the Judicial Officers

Association were not considered by the

Committee as they were beyond its scope.

The Committee vide paragraph 73 and 74

enumerated the areas to be reviewed by

Separate Judicial Pay Commission.

The Petitioners most respectfully submit

that since then there has been no review of

the service conditions of the subordinate

judiciary even when there has been a

periodic review in respect of administrative

services. Thus, even after three rounds of

litigations and two commissions spanning

across two decades that have brought

certain widespread changes in the working

conditions of the subordinate judiciary in

India, there still remains a disparity

between the treatment of working

conditions of the subordinate judicial

services and other administrative services,

in terms of monetary benefit as well as

social security. It is most respectfully

submitted that the pivotal reason for this

uncertainty is lack of a permanent body

that can regulate the service conditions of

the subordinate judiciary.

28/02/2014 7th Pay Commission was constituted. The

terms of reference of the said Commission

are as follows:

To examine, review, evolve and

recommend changes that are

desirable and feasible regarding the

principles that should govern the

emoluments structure including pay

allowances and other

facilities/benefits, in cash or kind,

having regard to rationalization and

simplification therein as well as the

specialized needs of various

Departments, agencies and services,

in respect of the following categories

of employees: -

i. Central Government employees –

industrial and non-industrial;

ii. Personnel belonging to the All

India Services:

iii. Personnel of the Union Territories;

iv. Officers and employees of the

Indian Audit and Accounts

Department;

v. Members of the regulatory bodies

(excluding the RBI) set up under

the acts of Parliament; and

vi. Officers and employees of the

Supreme Court

It is thus evident that the scope of 7th Pay

Commission does not extend to the Sub-

Ordinate Judiciary. Thus while it would

bring about better pay scales to the

Indian Administrative Officers there would

be no improvement in the service

conditions of the members of the

subordinate judiciary. This is violative of

the principles of equality and

fundamental rights guaranteed under

Article 14 and 16

07/07/2014 20th Law Commission submitted the 245th

report on arrears and backlogs

recommending increase in the retirement

age of the judges of subordinate judiciary

from 60 to 62.

13/05/2015 Petitioner submitted a representation to

the Cabinet Secretary of the Government

of India to constitute an All India Judicial

Commission to review the service

conditions of the judicial officers of

District Judiciary in India..

23/06/2015 The abovementioned representation was

rejected by Government of India on the

ground that service conditions of the

judicial officers of State Public Judicial is

not within the competence of Central

Government and the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has been seized of the matter.

In these circumstances the Petitioners are

constrained to file this present petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

1. All India Judges AssociationThrough its Working PresidentHaving address at: 37 Upkar Society, Harinagar, Gotri Road, Vadodara –390007 … Petitioner

Versus1. Union of India

Notice through, Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice,4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 … Respondent No.1

2. The Registrar General, High Court of Allahabad,Allahabad, U.P. 211001 … Respondent No.2

3. The Registrar General, High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. … Respondent No.3

4. The Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad – 500266 … Respondent No.4

5. The Registrar General, High Court of Bombay,Mumbai – 400032 … Respondent No.5

6. The Registrar, High Court of Bombay,Goa (Panaji) Bench,Goa – 403 001 … Respondent No.6

7. The Registrar General, High Court of Calcutta,Kolkata – 700001 … Respondent No.7

8. The Registrar General, High Court of Calcutta,Circuit Bench at Andaman & Nicobar IslandsPort Blair – 744101 … Respondent No.8

9. The Registrar General, High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur – 795001 … Respondent No.9

10. The Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi – 110003 … Respondent No.10

11. The Registrar General, High Court of Guwahati,Guwahati – 781001 … Respondent No.11

12. The Registrar, High Court of GuwahatiImphal Bench, Imphal. … Respondent No.12

13. The Registrar General, High Court of GuwahatiKohima Bench, Kohima. … Respondent No.13

14. The Registrar General, High Court of GuwahatiAgartala Bench, Agartala. … Respondent No.14

15. The Registrar General, High Court of Guwahati,Aizwal Bench, Aizwal. … Respondent No.15

16. The Registrar General, High Court of Guwahati,Shillong Bench, Shillong. … Respondent No.16

17. The Registrar General, High Court of GuwahatiItanagar bench, Itanagar. … Respondent No.17

18. The Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat,Ahmedbad. … Respondent No.18

19. The Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh,Shimla – 171001 … Respondent No.19

20. The Registrar General, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir,Srinagar – 190001 … Respondent No.20

21. The Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand,Ranchi – 834033 … Respondent No.21

22. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka,Bangalore – 560001 … Respondent No.22

23. The Registrar General, High Court of Kerala,Ernakulam (Kochi) – 682031 … Respondent No.23

24. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras,Chennai – 600104 … Respondent No.24

25. The Registrar General, High Court of MadrasMadurai Bench, Madurai. … Respondent No.25

26. The Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh,Jabalpur – 482001 … Respondent No.26

27. The Registrar General, High Court of Orissa,Cuttak – 753002 … Respondent No.27

28. The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and HaryanaChandigarh – 160001 … Respondent No.28

29. The Registrar General, High Court of Rajasthan,Jodhpur – 342001 … Respondent No.29

30. The Registrar General, High Court of Sikkim,Gangtok. … Respondent No.30

31. The Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand,Nainital. … Respondent No.31

32. State of Andhra PradeshNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500022…Respondent No.32

33. State of Arunanchal Pradesh

Notice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Itanagar – 791111. … Respondent No.33

34. State of AssamNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Dispur,Guwahati – 781006 … Respondent No.34

35. State of BiharNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Patna. … Respondent No.35

36. State of ChattisgarhNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat,Raipur – 492001 … Respondent No.36

37. State of GoaNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Porvorim – Goa … Respondent No.37

38. State of Gujarat,Notice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar – 382010 … Respondent No.38

39. State of HaryanaNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Haryana Civil Secretariat, Sector 01, Chandigarh-160001 … Respondent No.39

40. State of Himachal PradeshNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Shimla – 171002 … Respondent No.40

41. State of Andhra PradeshNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, SrinagarJammu and Kashmir … Respondent No.41

42. State of Andhra PradeshNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Dhurwa,Ranchi – 834001 … Respondent No.42

43. State of KarnatakaNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Bangalore – 560001 … Respondent No.43

44. State of KeralaNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Government Secretariat,Thiruvananthapuram – 695001 … Respondent No.44

45. State of Madhya PradeshNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat,Bhopal 462004 … Respondent No.45

46. State of MaharashtraNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Mantralaya,Mumbai – 400032 … Respondent No.46

47. State of Manipur, Notice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, ImphalManipur – 795001 … Respondent No.47

48. State of MeghalayaNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Main Secretariat, ShillongMeghalaya – 793001 … Respondent No.48

49. State of MizoramNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Capital Complex,Khatla, Aizawl – 796001 … Respondent No.49

50. State of NagalandNotice through

Secretary, Legal Affairs,New Secretariat Complex,Kohima – 797004 … Respondent No.50

51. State of OdishaNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Odisha 751 013 … Respondent No.51

52. State of PunjabNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Civil Secretariat, Sector 9Chandigarh … Respondent No.52

53. State of Rajashtan Notice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Jaipur – 302005 … Respondent No.53

54. State of SikkimNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Tashiling Secretariat,Gangtok – 737101 … Respondent No.54

55. State of Tamil NaduNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Chennai – 600009 … Respondent No.55

56. State of Telangana Notice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat … Respondent No.56

57. State of TripuraNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,New Secretariat Building,Capital Complex,Agartala – 799006 … Respondent No.57

58. State of Uttar PradeshNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Lucknow – 226001 … Respondent No.58

59. State of UttarakhandNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Subash Road,Dehradun – 248001 … Respondent No.59

60. State of West BengalNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Advantage Bengal Building, 700016 … Respondent No.60

61. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Notice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Port Blair – 744101 … Respondent No.61

62. Union Territory of ChandigarhNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Territory Secretariat, Sector – 9Chandigarh … Respondent No.62

63. Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar HaveliNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Silvassa – 396230 … Respondent No.63

64. Union Territory of Daman & DiuNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Fort Area,Moti Daman, Daman – 396220 … Respondent No.64

65. Union Territory of DelhiNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, New Delhi – 110113… Respondent No.65

66. Union Territory of LakshwadeepNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, Kavaratti – 682555 … Respondent No.66

67. Union Territory of PuducherryNotice through Secretary, Legal Affairs,Secretariat, 605 001 … Respondent No.67

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A

WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY

OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT / ORDERS /

DIRECTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS

LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE

NAMED.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Petitioner in the instant case is the All India

Judges Association whose members are judges of the

subordinate judiciary from all over India and was

formed and registered in 1985. The petitioner was

formed with the primary objective of improving the

service conditions of the judges in sub ordinate

judiciary. Ever since its inception, the AIJA has striven

towards achieving its objective and has approached

this Hon’ble Court on several occasions in the past by

filing writ petition raising issues of common good and

for the benefit of the subordinate judiciary as a

whole. Resultantly, this Hon’ble Court had directed

for constitution of the Hon’ble Justice Shetty

Commission and Hon’ble Justice Padmanabhan

Commission for recommending improvements in the

service conditions of judicial officers. These

commissions have favourably shaped the service

conditions of all the judges in sub ordinate judiciaryin

compliance with the directions by this Hon’ble Court.

Thus, the efforts of AIJA are aimed towards the

welfare of its members and not of any particular

individual. In this context, it is submitted that the

instant petition is being filed so that the judicial

officers are granted their essential and basic service

conditions.

1A. That the petitioner has authorised Sh. Devendra Kumar

Jangala who is presently posted as Additional District

Judge Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and who is also

Honorary Secretary (Zonal) of the Petitioner to file the

present petition. The petitioner before filing the

present had made a representation to the Cabinet

Secretary, Government of India on 13/05/205 (which

is on record as Annexure:P-10). However the the

abovementioned representation was rejected by

letter dated 23/06/2015 (which is on record as

Annexure:P-11) on the ground that the conditions of

service of judicial officers of State Public Judiciary is

not within the competence of the Central Government

and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been seized

of the matter.

2. That Article 50 of the Constitution of India

incorporates the concept of separation of judiciary

from the executive in the public services of the State

and the distinction between the two hasto be

maintained.

3. Importantly, though the periodic exercise of

constituting a Pay Commission for the executive in

public service has been undertaken by the

Central/State Government and pay scales are being

reviewed, no such mechanism has been put in place

for the judicial services despite specific directions by

the Hon’ble Court to this effect. This Hon’ble Court in

All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India

1992 (1) SCC 119 was pleased to direct that “as and

when such Commissions or committees are set up in

the states and Union Territories hereafter, they

separately examine and review pay structure of

judicial officers keeping in view all relevant

aspects.”(p.199 SCC).

4. However, these directions by this Hon’ble Court were

sought to be reviewed by the Union of India and the

States. This Hon’ble Court accordingly in All India

Judges Association Vs. Union of India 1993 (4)

SCC 288 while disposing off the review petitions, was

pleased to hold that merely because Article 309 of

the Constitution of India gives power to the executive

and the legislature to prescribe the service conditions

of the judiciary, and that after the council of States

make the necessary declaration under Article 312 of

the Constitution of India, the Parliament is

empowered to create All India Judicial Service, it does

not mean that the judiciary should have no say in the

matter. It would be against the spirit of the

Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in that

behalf for theoretically it would not be impossible for

the executive or the legislature to turn and twist the

tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a

consequence would be against one of the seminal

mandates of the Constitution, namely to maintain

independence of the judiciary and no price is too

heavy to secure it. This Hon’ble Court had then held

that it was for this reason that the practice of

entrusting the work of recommending the service

conditions of members of subordinate judiciary to the

same Pay Commission which recommended the

service conditions of the other services required

reconsideration. This Hon’ble Court has ruled that the

service conditions of the Judicial Officers should be

laid down and reviewed from time to time by an

independent Commission exclusively constituted for

the purpose, and the composition of such

Commission should reflect adequate representation

on behalf of the judiciary. The question with regard to

pay scales in respect of the members of the judicial

service had however been initially referred to the 5th

Central Pay Commission. However, in view of the

directions as above, the Govt. of India by a resolution

dated 21/03/1996, constituted the First National

Judicial pay Commission under the Chairmanship of

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. J. Shetty, a former Judge of this

Hon’ble Court. Subsequently, by an amendment

made on 24/10/1996, the reference to the 5th Central

Pay Commission with regard to the fixation of Pay

Scales of the Judicial Officers was deleted.

5. That the 5th Central Pay Commission submitted its

report on 30/01/1997, which was accepted by the

government on 30/09/1997 and was made applicable

w.e.f. 01/01/1996. The First National Judicial Pay

Commission (‘Shetty Commission’ for short)submitted

its report on 11/11/1999 wherein after taking into

consideration the recommendations which have been

made by the 5thCentral Pay Commission and the

pivotal role of the subordinate judiciary a master pay

scale was evolved. The Shetty Commission came to

the conclusion that the number of pay Scale should

be equal to the number of clearly identifiable levels of

responsibility also taking into consideration the scope

for promotional avenues. It is a matter of record that

even the recommendations made by the Shetty

Commission have been resisted on one pretext or the

other including the alleged plea of financial burden.

Finally, this Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated

21/03/2002 vide All India Judges Association Vs.

Union of India 2002 (4) SCC 247 was pleased to

accept the recommendations of the Shetty

Commission subject to certain modifications by this

Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court also directed that

the Pay Scale so approved shall be w.e.f. 01/07/1996.

6. That though this Hon’ble Court in its review judgment

(as above) had directed that the service conditions of

the Judicial Officers should be laid down and reviewed

from time to time by an independent Commission

exclusively constituted for the purpose, inspite of the

Central Government constituting the subsequent Pay

Commission namely the 6th Central Pay Commission,

no such separate independent Commission was

constituted to review the service conditions of the

subordinate judiciary as directed by this Hon’ble

Court. The Shetty Commission in its report while

arriving at the Pay Scales recommended for the

subordinate judicial service, had noted that while

fixing the maximum of the master pay scale, it had

been constraint by the vertical cap of the salaries of

the High Court Judges. In other words, the district

judges could not get more salary than the High Court

Judges, whose salaries were statutorily fixed. It was

however, recommended that as and when the

salaries of High Court Judges were raised, the salary

of the Judicial Officers should also be increased by

maintaining the ratio which the Shetty Commission

had recommended. The salary of the High Court

Judges was revised by the High Court and Supreme

Court Judges (salaries and conditions of service)

Amendment Ordinance, 2009, published in the

Gazette of India vide notification dated 09/01/2009.

Subsequently, this became an Act of the Parliament.

Since the Pay Scales admissible to the subordinate

judiciary saw no revision, this Hon’ble Court vide

order dated 28/04/2009 in All India Judges

Association Vs. Union of India 2011 (12) SCC

678 was pleased to appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice E.

Padmanabhan, Retd. Judge of the Madras High Court

to make suitable recommendations having regard to

the recommendations already made by the Shetty

Commission in respect of the pay scales and

allowances and certain other perquisites of the

judicial officers.

7. That Justice E. Padmanabhan submitted his report

dated 17.07.2009and made several determinations

on the basis of the First National Judicial Pay

Commission Report consequent to revision of scale of

pay of the High Court Judges. The Commission

however, recommended that its recommendations be

implemented w.e.f. 01/01/2006 i.e. the date from

which the recommendations made by the 6thCentral

Pay Commission were implemented by the Central

Government. However, the Commission in para VIII of

its Report noted that several demands made by the

Judicial Officers and Pensioners fell outside the scope

of reference made to the Commission. All these

demands, as the report of the Commission would

depict, pertained to the various service conditions of

the Judicial Officers, but were not considered by the

Commission since these were found to be beyond the

scope of limited reference made to the Commission.

The terms of reference of the said Padmanabhan

Commission were severely restricted on account of it

being limited to determine the pay scale of judicial

officers on the basis of recommendations of the

Shetty Commission. The Hon’ble Commission in para

74 of its report thus, recorded the following:

… Since most of the demands so made are

outside the scope of reference made to this

Commission by the Hon’ble Court, this

Commission has enumerated those demands,

which require consideration either by this

Hon’ble Court or by separate Judicial Pay

Commission or at the appropriate level and they

are given hereunder:…

8. The Commission in Part VIII of its report, has made

reference to at least 56 essential conditions of service

which could not be reviewed by it since they were

outside the scope of reference to the Commission. In

Part IX the Commission recorded the following

demands which do not even cost the exchequer.

i) Five Days a week.

ii) Provision for Transit/Guest House facility.

iii) Issuance of Car stickers for personal cars of Judicial officers as also for providing red light atop the vehicles of the particular level of Judicial Officers.

iv) Issue of Seniority–Rota-Quota.

v) Separate Forum (State Level and National Level) for settlement of various administrative and service grievances/problems.

vi) Welfare activities for the fraternity in general.

vii) Advance of salary for meeting contingencies – 15 days salary prayed.

viii) Protocol to Distt. Judiciary – to be maintained as per their status as executives.

ix) Priority in reservations/bookings: alongwith transportation, quest houses, rest houses etc.

x) Identity Cards to Pensioners and Family Pensioners to avail medical facilities etc.

xi) II ACP alongwith fixation of seniority to be finalized promptly.

xii) Change of nomenclature of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge.

9. Thus, several essential conditions of service of the

judicial officers are left to be addressed till date. It is

in view of these, the Hon’ble Commission too, in Para

75 of its report has stressed upon the need to have a

pay commission periodically constituted for judicial

officers simultaneously with the Pay Commission

constituted for the employees of the Central

Government. To quote from the words of the

Commission:

“appointment of a Judicial Pay Commission

should normally be made when Central Pay

Commission is constituted and notified.”

10. That in exercise of its executive power under

Article 73 of the Constitution of India, the Central

Government constitutes Pay Commissions generally

after a gap of every 10 years for periodic revision of

pay scales admissible to Central Government

employees. However, no such mechanism has been

devised for periodic revision of pay and allowances

admissible to the members of the subordinate

judiciary inspite of specific directions by this Hon’ble

Court and the recommendations for such periodic Pay

Commission made by the First National Judicial Pay

Commission and the Padmanabhan Commission as

well. It may be noted that the Central Government

has now notified constitution of the 7th Pay

Commission for the Central Government Employees,

but no such exercise has been undertaken to revise

the conditions of service of the members of

subordinate judiciary.

11. That in view of the above, the Petitioner prefers the

present petition to seek uniform review and

improvement of the service conditions of the judicial

officers throughout the country. The Petitioner seeks

constitution of a commission to review the service

conditions of the members of the district judiciary,

including the following but not restricted to:

i. Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending

changes/modification of emoluments structure

including but not restricted to pay, allowances

including inter alia conveyance allowance,

residential allowance, traveling allowance and

library allowance, and other facilities/benefits, in

cash or kind, having regard to

rationalization, ,uniformity and simplification

therein as well as the specialized needs of district

judiciary in India with due emphasis on aspects

unique to the judges of the district courts in India;

ii. Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending

changes to bring uniformity in the pay scales of

District judges in India

iii. Examining the principles governing the structure of

pension and other retirement benefits, including

revision of pension in the case of subordinate court

judges including those who have retired prior to

the date of the effect of the recommendation of

the proposed Commission. 

iv. Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending

changes/modification, including but not restricted

to the principle of parity,of the benefit of pension

and other retirement benefits to judges appointed

after 31/12/2003 at various levels of district

judiciary in India as per the pension scheme

approved by this Hon’ble Court which is payable to

judges appointed up to 31/12/2003, as against the

New Pension Scheme (NPS) implemented by the

government.

v. Increasing the age of retirement of District judges

in India;

vi. Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending

the principle and roadmap for creation of All India

Judicial Services;

vii. Developing a framework for emoluments structure

linked with the need to attract the most suitable

talent to judicial service at various levels of district

judiciary in India and promoting efficiency,with due

regard to expectations of stakeholders, and to

recommend appropriate training and capacity

building through a competency based framework;

viii. Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending

the principle and roadmap for creation of more

posts periodically to meet the increasing

requirement and improve the judicial infrastructure

available to the lower judiciary;

ix. Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending

changes to correct the anomaly in the

increments/allowances of judges from different

cadres;

x. Examining and removing any anomalies of the First

National Judicial Pay Commission as well of J.

Padmanabhan Committee report;

xi. Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending

various measures,including preventive

measures, to ensure safety and security to district

judiciary in India so as to ensure that the judges

are able to discharge  their judicial duties

fearlessly;

xii. Examining, rationalising and recommending the

ratio of vacancies for appointment as judges of

High Courts from amongst the members of the bar

and the judicial officers to ensure fair

representation to the judicial officers from the

State Judicial Services and further the judicial

officers who join the State Judicial Services at the

entry level be also given due representation in the

High Courts and at the higher levels of the

judiciary;

xiii. Examining, evolving and recommending the

principles and roadmap for constitution of a

permanent independent commission/body to

periodically review the service conditions

and emoluments structure including but not

restricted to pay, allowances and other

facilities/benefits, in cash or kind, and  the

principles that should govern the District Judiciary

in India;

xiv. Examining, evolving and recommending principles

and roadmap for better promotional opportunities

for Judicial officers from State Judicial Service

particularly promotion in Higher Judicial Service

and representation in High Court and Apex

Court,including periodic review of the Rules of

Recruitment and Promotion that should govern the

district judiciary.

12. It is submitted that the only efficacious remedy

available with the petitioner on account of violation of

Petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under

Articles 14 and 16 is by way of the present petition

under Article 32.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are

as follows:

a. That in 1989 a petition under Article 32 was filed

by the All India judges, Association and its

working President for reliefs through directions

for the setting up of an All India Judicial Service

and for bringing about uniformity and improving

conditions of service of members of the

subordinate judiciary throughout the country.

The said writ petition was disposed in the case

of All India Judges’ Association v. Union of

India and Ors. – 1992 (1) SCC 119

(hereinafter referred as first AIJA case), giving

significant directions in respect of enhanced pay

scales, enhancement and uniformity in age of

retirement and additional allowances, while also

recognizing the dire conditions of service of the

subordinate judiciary.

True copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association v.

Union of India and Ors. – 1992 (1) SCC 119 is

marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-

1(Pages ___ to ____)

b. That in 1993 the Union of India filed a review

petition pursuant to first AIJA case, seeking

certain modifications/clarifications. This review

petition was disposed of by the judgment,

entitled All India Judges’ Association and Ors.

Etc. v. Union of India and Ors etc., - 1993 (4)

SCC 288 (hereinafter referred as second AIJA

case). The Court reasserted its views of the

first AIJA case and held in this case that the

parity should be maintained between the

political executive, the legislators and the

Judges and not between the Judges and the

administrative executive.

True copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association

v. Union of India and Ors. – 1993 (4) SCC 288 is

marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-

2 (Pages ___ to ____)

c. That in 1996 pursuant to the directions issued

by this Court in the second AIJA case, the

Government of India by a resolution

constituted the First National Judicial Pay

Commission under the chairmanship of Mr.

Justice K.J. Shetty (hereinafter referred as

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shetty Commission) and in

the year 1999 the said commission submitted

its report with recommendations.

True copy of the relevant extracts of Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Shetty Commission report is marked

and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-3

(Pages ___ to ____)

d. In the case of All India Judges Association and

Ors. v. dUnion of India, 2002 (4) SCC

247(hereinafter referred as third AIJA case) this

Hon’ble Court rejected the contention of

Financial Burden and directed the

Government to comply with the

recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission.

True copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association v.

Union of India and Ors. – 2002 (4) SCC 247 is

marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-4

(Pages ___ to ____)

e. In March 2008 the 6th Central Pay Scale

Commission submitted its report revising the

pay scale of the executive branch of the

government.

True copy of the relevant extracts of 6th Central

Pay Scale Commission report is marked and

annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-5 (Pages

___ to ____)

f. That on 28/04/2009 this Hon’ble Court appointed

the Hon’ble Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan

Commission to determine the pay scales of all

the Judicial Officers etc. throughout the country

on the basis of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shetty

Commission’s Report.

True copy of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court dated 28/04/2009 is marked and annexed

hereto as ANNEXURE P-6 (Pages ___ to ____)

g. That the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan

Commission was directed to determine scales of

pay, allowances, perquisites etc. of Judicial

Officers in the cadre of (i) Civil Judges (Junior

Division), (ii) Civil Judges (Senior Division), (iii)

District Judges (Entry Grade), (iv) District Judges

(Selection Grade) and (v) District Judges (Super

Time Scale) having regard to the

recommendations already made by the Hon’ble

Justice Shetty Commission in respect of the pay

scales, allowances and other perquisites of the

Judicial Officers, and so also revised Pensionary

benefits payable to Judicial Pensioners.

h. That in 2009 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan

Committee submitted its report, however,

various demands made by the Judicial Officers

Association were not considered by the

Committee as they were beyond its scope. The

Committee vide paragraph 73 and 74

enumerated the areas to be reviewed by

Separate Judicial Pay Commission.

True copy of the relevant extracts of Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Padmanabhan Committee report is

marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-

7 (Pages ___ to ____)

The Petitioners most respectfully submit that

since then there has been no review of the

service conditions of the subordinate judiciary

even when there has been a periodic review in

respect of administrative services. Thus, even

after three rounds of litigations and two

commissions spanning across two decades that

have brought certain widespread changes in the

working conditions of the subordinate judiciary

in India, there still remains a disparity between

the working conditions of the subordinate

judicial services and other administrative

services in terms of monetary benefit as well as

social security. It is most respectfully submitted

that the pivotal reason for this uncertainty is

lack of a permanent body that can better

understand the concerns and regulate the

service conditions of the subordinate judiciary.

i. That on 28/02/2014 the Central Government

has constituted the Seventh Central Pay

Commission to yet again review the pay scales

and other allowances of the executive. As a

consequence the negative gap with regard to

the pay scales between the Judiciary and

Political Executive, who are at par, would

increase. This kind of discriminative treatment

amongst equals is volatile of Article 16 read

with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A

copy of the resolution passed by the

Government constituting the Seventh Pay

Commission is hereto marked and annexed as

ANNEXURE P-8. (Pages ___to___)

j. That on 07/07/2014, the 20th Law Commission

has submitted the 245th report on arrears and

backlogs. In the said report the Law

Commission has recommended to increase the

retirement age of the judges in subordinate

industry from 60 to 62.

True copy of the relevant extracts of 245th Law

Commission report is marked and annexed

hereto as ANNEXURE P-9. (Pages ___ to

____)

k. That the petitioner has made several

representations to the respondents requesting

them to review the service conditions of the

judicial officers. On 13/05/2015 a

representation was made to the Cabinet

Secretary of the Government of India to

constitute an All India Judicial Commission to

review the service conditions of the judicial

officers of District Judiciary in India..

True copy of representation dated

13/05/2015 made to the Cabinet Secretary of

the Government of India is marked and

annexed hereto as ANNEXURE:P-10. (Pages

___to___).

l. That on 23/06/2015, the abovementioned

representation was rejected by Government of

India on the ground that service conditions of

the judicial officers of State Public Judicial is

not within the competence of Central

Government and the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has been seized of the matter.

True copy of letter dated 23/06/2015 issued by

the Joint Secretary of the Government of India

is marked and annexed hereto as

ANNEXURE:P-11. (Pages ___to___).

J. It is respectfully stated and submitted that in

the aforesaid background, the Petitioner seeks

to prefer the present petition on the following

amongst the other grounds that may be urged

at the time of hearing of the present petition.

The grounds set out hereunder are without

prejudice to one another.

2. GROUNDS

A. Because there is parity between the Judges and

Political Executive and as such they have to be

treated equally. This Hon’ble Court in the second AIJA

case held that 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. In a democracy 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 legislatures 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 U.S.A., 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 par

with the members of the judiciary, either

constitutionally or functionally. This Court also held

second AIJA case that Under the Constitution, the

judiciary is above the administrative executive and

any attempt to place it on par with the administrative

executive has to be discouraged.

B. Because keeping Judges in want of the essential

accoutrements impedes them in the proper discharge

of their duties. This Court in the second AIJA case held

that this distinction between the Judges and the

members of the other services has to be constantly

kept in mind for yet another important reason.

Judicial independence cannot be secured by making

mere solemn proclamations about it. It has to be

secured both in substance and in practice. It is trite to

say that those who are in want cannot be free. Self-

reliance is the foundation of independence. The

society has a stake in ensuring the independence of

the judiciary, and no price is too heavy to secure it.

To keep the judges in want of the essential

accoutrements and thus to impede them in the

proper discharge of their duties is to impair and

whittle away justice itself.

C. Because there is discrimination amongst the service

conditions of Judges and Political Executive who are

par under the Constitution. Pay scales of Judicial

officers have become lesser than Executive

particularly in Higher Judicial Service cadre for

example as per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shetty

Commission super time scale for HJS was 22850 to

24850 and in 5th CPC was 22400-to-24500 but in

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Padmnabhan Report it was 70290

to 76450 but in 6th CPC its 67000 to 79000. This

negative gap would increase after 7th CPC. In these

circumstances it is essential that a judicial body may

be set up to review the working conditions of the

judges of the subordinate judiciary periodically.

D. Because it is absolutely necessary that appropriate

conditions should be provided for the judicial officer

and he should have reasonable mental peace in order

that he may perform his duties satisfactorily.

Rendering justice is a difficult joband unless the

judicial officer has a reasonably worry free mental

condition, it would be difficult to expect unsoiled

justice from his hands. It is therefore imperative that

a judicial commission may be set up to review the

working conditions of the judges of the subordinate

judiciary periodically.

E. Because the 20th Law Commission in its 245th Report

has recommended that, in order to meet the need

for a large number of appropriately trained

Subordinate Court Judges, the age of retirement of

Subordinate judges be raised to 62. The benefits of

increase in the retirement age be made available to

judicial officers in terms of the directions of the

Supreme Court in second AIJA Case. Thus there is a

need to change the service conditions of the judicial

officers including but not limited to the increase in

the age of retirement.

F. Because the judges of subordinate judiciary should

be treated differently from the officers of the

administrative services. It is pertinent to point out

thatearlier also the Law Commission in its

14thReport had recommended to raise the age of

retirement of subordinate judges to 62 years, in

order to meet the need of a large number of

adequately trained judicial officers. The Law

Commission in its 14th report deals with this aspect

at Page 123 of the report and said that there is yet

another reason why the question of age of

retirement of subordinate judges should be treated

differently from that in other state services as

judicial officer enters service at a comparatively

higher age, than a recruit to the executive or

administrative services. It would therefore, be

proper that the retirement age of the judicial officer

should be relatively higher age than that of an

executive officer so as to enable him to serve for

the full number of years, if he retains his fitness and

capacity of work till he reaches such higher age. It is

thus, humbly submitted that the nature of work that

the judicial officers and executive officers undertake

is different and by treating unequal equally (the age

of superannuation of both services is 60 years)

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are

being violated.

G. Because there is a need to review the working

conditions of the judges of the subordinate judiciary

post Hon’ble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan Commission. It

is submitted that since then there has not been any

review of the service conditions of the judicial

officers. Further the scope of Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Padmanabhan Commission was confined only to

determine the pay scales of all the Judicial Officers

etc. throughout the country on the basis of the

Hon’ble Justice Shetty Commission’s Report i.e. First

National Judicial Pay Commission. However on the

other hand the members of administrative services

had the benefit of periodic review of service

conditions by way of several pay commissions. It is

therefore necessary that the service conditions of the

judicial services may be reviewed by way of a judicial

commission.

H. Because the anomaly in the increments given to the

judicial officers throughout the country ought to be

removed. Hon’ble Mr. Justice E. Pabnanabham

suggested Master pay scale with 44 stages. In order

to spread the pay scale between Rs. 27700 to Rs.

76450.00 in 44 stages Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Padmanabhan determined increments of low amount.

It is most respectfully submitted that the

recommendation needs to be reviewed in view of

anomaly in fixing increments. For example, increment

of Civil Judge Senior Division is Rs. 1230.00;

increment of District Judge Entry Level also starts

with Rs. 1230.00. Next stage of increment of district

Judge Entry Level is Rs. 1380.00, the increment of DJ

Selection Grade however again starts from Rs.

1230.00. Apart from this anomaly static rate of

increment put the judicial officers in loss in perpetuity

when compared with running pay bands suggested by

6th pay commission and accepted by Hon Apex Court

while determining pay scales of the employees of

Supreme Court of India.

I. Because the judges of subordinate judiciary are

bearing a recurring loss in view of the anomaly in

increments. It is pertinent to point out that Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Shetty Commission had

consideredgranting increments as a percentage of

basic pay, but at that point of time such system was

found operationally inconvenient (Para 15.51 report).

However the 6th Central Pay Commission

recommended running pay bands by suggesting

increments @ 3% of basic pay. Advantages of

system to fix salary in pay bands are mentioned in

Para 2.2.13 of sixth Pay Commission Report. It is most

respectfully submitted that pay band and grade pay

system may be adopted to avoid recurring loss of the

Judges.

J. Because it is essential to bring uniformity inthe pay

scales of the judges who have been recruited through

different sources.For example, a person joining as

Civil Judge Junior Division (“CJJD” for short) has an

opportunity for promotion after 5 to 7 years. If he is

not promoted in 5 years, even then he can get ACP

and will be shifted to new pay scale. In view of this it

is most respectfully submitted that stages of pay

scale for CJJD cadre can be reduced to 17 stages. A

judge in the cadre of Civil Judge Senior Division

(“CJSD” for short) gets an opportunity for promotion

in the cadre of District Judge (“DJ” for short) in five

years. His optimum length of service in the cadre of

CJSD will be of 10 to 11 years, so 11 stages can be

dedicated in the master pay scale for the cadre of

CJSD. 8 stages could be keep for the cadre of DJ Entry

Level, 8 stages for the cadre of DJ Selection Grade

and 4 stages for DJ Super Time in this way, Master

pay scale of 36 stages will be appropriate and will

cater the need to provide 3% increment to the judges

with running pay band but without grade pay. In the

absence of a body,that is familiar with the judiciary

and the facilities required of judicial officers,to review

and redress these anomalies, it is difficult to bring

improvement in the working conditions of the sub-

ordinate judiciary.

K. Because there is a need to review the entitlements of

the judicial officers by way of allowances. Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Padmanabhan proposed hike in some of the

allowances. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan

however avoided considering recommendations of 6th

central pay commission regarding the changes in the

scheme of providing some allowances and

introduction of new allowances. Sumptuary

allowances is required to be provided @ Rs. 6000.00

per month to DJ Rs. 4500.00 to CJSD and Rs.3000.00

to CJJD, total expenses of electricity and water

charges are directed to be reimbursed, robe

allowance of Rs. 16000.for block of three years be

provided, reimbursement for mobile phone bill to be

provided, conveyance allowance of Rs.7000.00 per

month plus DA be provided, HTC be provided every

year. Children education allowance and hostel

subsidy be provided to the judges as recommended

by 6th pay commission.

L. Because in view of the nature of work and stringent

restrictions thereon, it is essential that the judicial

officers may be paid pension as per the pension

scheme approved by this Hon’ble Court as against

the new scheme implemented by the government. It

is most respectfully submitted that the

pensionscheme as recommended by Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Shetty Commission is not applicable to newly

recruited Judges. They are required to contribute 10%

of basis pay as member contributory scheme. As

service conditions of judges are governed by

recommendations of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shetty

Commission the state government cannot unilaterally

withdraw the pension scheme for the judges. The

judges recruited after 2003 are neither getting the

benefits of pension scheme not they are getting total

pay recommended by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shetty

Commission.

M.Because to maintain the independence of the

judiciary it is necessary that there is an Independent

Commission which has the power to review the

service conditions of the Subordinate Judiciary. This

Court held in the second AIJA case that the present

practice of entrusting the work of recommending the

service conditions of the members of the subordinate

judiciary to the same Pay Commissions which

recommend the service conditions of the other

services requires reconsideration. The service

conditions of the judicial officers should be laid down

and reviewed from time to time by an independent

Commission exclusively constituted for the purpose,

and the composition of such commission should

reflect adequate representation on behalf of the

judiciary. In this regard the Hon’ble Court further

noted in the second AIJA case that in view of the

separation of the powers under the Constitution, and

the need to maintain the independence of the

judiciary to protect and promote democracy and the

rule of law, it would have been ideal if the most

dominant power of the executive and the legislative

over the judiciary, viz., that of determining its service

conditions had been subjected to some desirable

checks and balances. This is so even if ultimately, the

service conditions of the judiciary have to be

incorporated in and declared by the legislative

enactments. But the mere fact that Article 309 gives

power to the executive and the legislature to

prescribe the service conditions of the judiciary does

not mean that the judiciary should have no say in the

matter. It would be against the spirit of the

Constitution to deny any rule to the judiciary in that

behalf, for theoretically it would not be impossible for

the executive or the legislature to turn and twist the

tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a

consequence would be against one of the seminal

mandates of the Constitution, namely, to maintain

the independence of the judiciary.

N. Because the work of the judicial officers throughout

the country is of the similar nature, the service

conditions have to be uniform. This Court in the

second AIJA case emphasized the necessity of

entrusting the work of prescribing the service

conditions for the judicial officers to a separate Pay

Commission exclusively set up for the purpose. We

reiterate the importance of such separate

commission and also of the desirability of prescribing

uniform pay scales to the judges all over the country.

Since such pay scales will be the minimum deserved

by the judicial officers, the argument that some of the

States may not be able to bear the financial burden is

irrelevant. The uniform service conditions as and

when laid down would not, of course, affect any

special or extra benefits which some States may be

bestowing upon their judicial officers.

O. Because there is a need for creation of All India

Judicial Services to improve and bring uniformity the

administration of justice throughout the country. The

need for All India Judicial Services was felt as early as

in 1958 when the 14th Law Commission recommended

creation of an All India Judicial Services. Subsequently

an amendment was also brought in the constitution

enabling the government to establish All India Judicial

Services. However despite the directions of this

Hon’ble Court to examine the feasibility of the

implementation of these recommendations in the

case of first AIJA case, till date nothing concrete has

happened for establishment of AIJS.

P. Because there is wide variance in the pay structure

prevailing in the various States and Union Territories

and the judicial officers are remunerated differently

for similar nature of work. A pay commission

separately constituted for examining and reviewing

the pay structures of judicial officers across the

country will be able to better assess the reasons for

such variance and bring about uniformity, as far as

may be possible, in the terms and conditions of

service of the subordinate judiciary.

Q. Because the Court needs to issue directions to the

authorities to perform their obligatory duties

whenever there is a failure on their part to discharge

them and the legislature and executive in this

instance have failed to meet their obligations by

neglecting to improve the service conditions of the

subordinate judiciary.

R. Because by deleting a reference in respect of pay

scales of judicial officers from the terms of reference

of the 5th Central Pay Commission and

contemporaneously constituting the Shetty

Commission, the Central Government had agreed to

set up a pay commission specifically for judicial

officers at the same time as constitution of a pay

commission for executives. However, the Central

Government has failed to constitute a separate pay

commission for the subordinate judiciary

subsequently when it constituted the 6th Central Pay

Commission in 2008 and when it recently constituted

the 7th Central Pay Commission in 2014.

S. Because the Central Government has rejected the

representation of the petitioner on the ground that

this Hon’ble Court has been seized of the matter. In

these circumstances, the petitioner are left with no

option but to approach this Hon’ble Court under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India for redressal of

their grievances.

T. The Petitioner craves leave to add, amend or alter the

grounds during the course of pendency of the instant

Writ Petition.

3. That the Petitioner has not filed any other or similar

Petition before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court

for similar relief as prayed for in the present Writ

Petition.

PRAYER

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased:

1. To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus or such other writ / order / direction as

may be necessary directing the Respondents to

constitute All India Judicial Commission in terms of

the representation made by the Petitioner to

Respondent No. 1 on 13/05/2015 to review the

service conditions of the judicial officers of

subordinate judiciary in India including but not limited

to Pay Scale, Retirement Age, Pension and other

emoluments of the Sub-ordinate judiciary from time

to time;

2. To issue such orders as may be necessary to direct

the Respondent No 1 to undertake appropriate

exercise to ascertain the feasibility of establishing an

All India Judicial Services; and

3. To pass such other orders and further orders as may

be deemed necessary on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS

INDUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

SETTLED BY:

MR. GOURAB BANERJI

(SENIOR ADVOCATE)

DRAWN AND FILED BY:

(MAYURI RAGHUVANSHI)

Advocate on Record for the Petitioner

DRAWN ON:

FILED ON: