ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A.NO. 244 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 1022 OF 1989
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSN. & ORS. Petitioner(s)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for directions for revision of pay of Subordinate Judicial Officers filed by Mr.A.T.M.Sampath,Advocate)
With I.A.Nos.1&2 in I.A.NO.244 in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For intervention on behalf of All India Retd. Judges Association, Andhra Pradesh filed by Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Advocate)
With I.A.No.3 IN I.A.NO.244 in W.P.(C)NO.1022/1989
(For extension of time filed by Mr.Naresh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of State of H.P.)
With I.A.No.4 in I.A.No.244 (For intervention filed by Mr.Rakesh Dahia, Advocate on behalf of Rajasthan Judicial Officers' Association)
WITH I.A.NO....in I.A.No.244 (for directions filed by Mr.Rakesh Dahia, Advocate on behalf of Rajasthan Judicial Officers' Association
I.A.No.5 in I.A.No.244 (for directions) filed by Ms.Anjani Aiyagari
I.A.No... in I.A.No.244 (For amendment/directions filed by Ms.Asha G.Nair, Adv. On b/o.Sewa Nevarit Nyayadish Kalyan Association)
I.A.No... in I.A.NO.244 (Appln.for intervention/directions filed by Mr.Debasis Mishra, Adv. On behalf of Dewani Nyalaya Tritya Shreni Karamchari Sangh)
I.A.NO.249 (For directions filed by Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv. On behalf of R.G., High Court of Delhi)
OFFICE REPORT REGARDING COMPLIANCE OF DIRECTIONS
WITH I.A.No.1 in 157, 193, 201 WITH I.A.NO.1, 208 WITH I.A.NO.... with 219 WITH I.A.NO.233, 220 with I.A.No.232, I.A.NO.3 IN 152, 223, 227,228 WITH I.A.No.1 in 213 in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(for directions/modification of order dt.21.03.2002 and impleadment and permission to file addl.documents and permission to take on record addl. documents and for permission to file intervention and directions, clarification and for exemption from filing O.T. and taking on record addl.affidavit containing subsequent events and annexures and directions and stay and intervention and office report)
(for further directions)
AND I.A.No.239 & 260 A in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(for impleadment on behalf of former Retd. Judges of U.P. Filed by Mr.P.K.Jain, Adv.)
AND I.A.No.240 with I.A.NO.255 in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(for impleadment and directions on behalf of Mr.Murali Mohan Reddy
etc. filed by Ms.A.Sumathi, Adv.)
AND I.A.No.266 (for directions) filed by Mr.J.R.Das, Adv.
WITH I.A.No.247 (For impleadment filed by Mr.T.L.Garg, Adv.on behalf of Delhi Judicial Service Association)
WITH I.A.NO..... (for directions)filed by Mr.T.C.Sharma on behalf of Delhi Judicial Service Association)
WITH I.A.No.246 (for directions filed by Ms.Meera Mathur, on behalf of Kerala Judicial Service Association)
WITH I.A.NO.... (for directions filed by Ms.N.Shobha, on behalf of Tamil Nadu Retd. Judges Welfare Asson.)
WITH I.A.No.262 in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For impleadment filed by Mr.Abhijit Sengupta, Adv. On behalf of Assam Retd. Judges Association).
WITH I.A.No.... in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For directions filed by Mr.Abhijit Sengupta, Adv. On behalf of Assam Retd. Judges Association).
I.A.No.264 in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For impleadment filed by Mr.Bharat Sangal, Adv. On behalf of J.V.Vyarhare Etc.).
WITH I.A.NO.265 IN W.P.(C)NO.1022/1989
(For impleadment filed by Mr.Vinay Kr.Garg, Advocate on behalf of U.P.Judicial Service Association)
I.A.No.... in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For directions filed by Mr.Vinay Kumar Garg, Adv. On behalf of
I.A.No.275 in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For impleadment filed by Mr.P.K.Jain, Adv. On behalf of U.P.Retd. Judges Association).
I.A.No.... in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For directions filed by Mr.P.K.Jain, Adv. On behalf of U.P.Retd. Judges Association).
I.A.No.273 in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For impleadment filed by Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. On behalf of applicant T.Muthyamaiah, Retd.Jr.Civil Judge, AP. & Ors.).
I.A.No.... in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(For directions filed by Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv. On behalf of applicant T.Muthyamaiah, Retd.Jr.Civil Judge, A.P.&Ors.).
I.A.No.224 in W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
(for directions filed by Ms.Anita Shenoy, Adv. On behalf of Gujarat
Judicial Service Association)
I.A.NO.277 IN W.P.(C) NO.1022/1089
(For intervention filed by Dr. Neelima Shangla, petitioner-in-person
addl. district & Sessions Judge, Haryana)
WITH SLP(C)Nos.16216-16217/2008 (with prayer for interim relief)
WITH CONT.PETN.(C)NO.281/2008 IN W.P.(C)No.1022/1989
WITH W.P.(C)No.339/2007 (with office report)
Date: 04/05/2010 These Petitions/applns. were mentioned today.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S.CHAUHAN
Mr. F.S. Nariman, Sr.Adv. (A.C.) (N.P.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.T.M. Sampath,Adv.
For Respondent/Applicant(s) :
Mr.A.Venayagam Balan, Adv.
-Mizoram Mr.K.N.Madhusoodhanan, Adv.
-Pondicherry: Mr.T.L.V.Iyer, Sr.Adv.
Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.
Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv.
Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv.
Mr.Vinay Kr.Garg, Adv.
Ms.Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
Mr.Sanjay Kharde, Adv.
Mrs.Asha G.nair, Adv.
I.A.NO.262 Mr.Azim H.Laskar, Adv.
Mr.Sachin Das, Adv.
For Mr.Abhijit Sengupta, Adv.
-Kerala H.C. Mr.T.G.N.Nair, Adv.
-Gujarat Ms.Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Mr.Somnath Padhan, Adv.
Ms. Jesal, Adv.
-Bihar: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
for Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
-West Bengal: Mr.Bhaskar P.Gupta, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Miss Neelam Sharma, Adv.
-Manipur Mr.Kh.Nobin Singh, Adv.
-Nagaland: Mr. Enatoli Sema, Adv.
Mr.Edward Belho, Adv.
Mr.Rituraj Biswas, Adv.
Assn.: Mrs. Sumita Ray, Adv.
Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Kandari, Adv.
-Orissa: Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv.
Mr.Antaryami Upadhyay, Adv.
-Haryana Mr.Manjit Singh, AAG
For Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
-UOI: Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv.
Ms. Saima Bakshi, Adv.
Ms.Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Minnatullah, Adv.
Mr.Gaurav Dhingra, Adv.
Mr.Ron Bastian, Adv.
For D.S.Mahra, Adv.
For Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Adv.
For Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
For Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.
Mr. D.N. Goburdhan ,Adv
-Assam: M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs.
-Calcutta H.C. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Puja Anand, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Das, Adv.
-Rajasthan Dr.Manish Singhvi,AAG
Mr.Devanshu Kr.Devesh, Adv.
Mr.Milind Kumar, Adv.
-Mizoram Judl.Ser.Assn. | Mr. Pravir Chowdhary, Adv.
& Nagaland Judl.Off. | Ms. Seema Sharma, Adv.
-H.C.of Orissa Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv.
Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.
-Arl.Pradesh: Mr.Ritu Raj, Adv.
For Mr.Anil Shrivastav, Adv.
Mr. V. Krishnamoorthy, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv.
-Patna H.C. For M/s.Parekh & Co.Advs.
-T.N. Mr.K.Rama Moorthi, Sr.Adv.
Mr.T.Harish Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Prasanth P., Adv.
-Rajasthan H.C. Mr.Sunil Kr.Jain, Adv.
-Meghalaya Mr. K.S. Kynjing, AG
Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
State & H.C-Uttara Ms.Rachana Srivastava, Adv.
-Tripura Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Adv.
Mr. A. Henry, Adv.
Jharkhand Judl.Ser. Mr.U.S.Prasad, Adv.
-Chhattisgarh Mr.Atul Jha, Adv.
For Mr.D.K.Sinha, Adv.
-I.A.NO.246 Mr.C.S.Rajan, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Anand Sukumar, Adv.
Mr. Bhupesh Kr. Pathak, Adv.
For Ms.Meera Mathur, Adv.
-Punjab Mr.Ajay Pal, Adv.
-H.C.of Sikkim & Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv.
State Mrs.Aruna Mathur, Adv.
Mr.Amarjeet Singh Girsa, Adv.
-Karnataka Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, AG
Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Adv.
Mr.A.Rohen Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ramesh K. Mishra, Adv.
Ms.Asha Jain Madan, Adv.
Mr.Ashok K.Srivastava, Adv.
Mr.Shaiwal Srivastava, Adv.
-U.P. Mr.Prashant Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Misra, Adv.
Mr.Bharat Sangal, Adv.
Ms. Vernika Tomar, Adv.
Mr.Mrinalini Oinam, Adv.
-Delhi H.C.& Ms.A.Subhashini, Adv.
State of Goa
Mr.Rakesh Dahiya, Adv.
Mr.Nikhil Jain, Adv.
Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv.
Mrs. Avtar Kaur Dingra, Adv.
Mr.Naresh Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Anip Sachthey, Adv.
Ms.Bina Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Rakesh K.Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Ajit Pudussery, Adv.
Mr.Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr.C.N.Sree Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Radha Shyam Jena, Adv.
Mr.Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Ashok Mathur, Adv.
M/s.Lawyers Knit & Co., Advs.
Mr.Anil Kr.Jha, Adv.
State of H.P. Mr.Naresh Kr.Sharma, AAG
Mr.Gopal B.Sathe, Adv.
Mr.Surya Kant, Adv.
M/s.Gagrat & Co., Advs.
Mr.Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Ms.Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. Charudatta Mahendrakar, Adv.
Ms. Rucha A. Mayee, Adv.
Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr.Sanjay Jain, Adv.
Mrs.D.Bharathi Reddy, Adv.
Mr.Subramonium Prasad, Adv.
Mr.Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.
Ms.Kavita Wadia, Adv.
Mr.Ravi Kumar Malhotra, Adv.
Ms.Rachna Gupta, Adv.
Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
Mr.Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.
M.Pravin Choudhury, Adv.
Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Vishwajit Singh, Adv.
Mr.R.D. Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms.Sushmita Lal, Adv.
Dr.Kailash Chand, Adv.
Mr.Ratan Kr.Choudhury, Adv.
Mr.Ashok Kr.Singh, Adv.
Mr.Atishi Dipankar, Adv.
Ms.Anagha S.Desai, Adv.
Mr.B.V.Balram Das, Adv.
Mr.Vikas Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms.Vibha Dutta Makhija, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Misra, Adv.
Mr.Manish Goswami, Adv.
J & K Mr.M.I.Qadri, A.G.
Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.
Mr.Syed Mehdi Imam, Adv.
Mr.Parvez Dabas, Adv.
Mr.Tabrez Ahmad, Adv.
Dr. Neelima Shangla,
Mr. Krishnanand Pandey, Adv.
Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K.N. Chowdhary, AAG, Assam
Mr. Manish Goswami, Adv.
For M/s. Map & Co., Advs.
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv.
Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In continuation of Order passed by this Court on 7.4.2010, we pass the following order.
Many of the States, for example, State of A.P. Gujarat, Orissa, Maharashtra and Goa had already submitted that they have no objection with the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the same. The State of U.P., Rajasthan, Orissa submitted that they would implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report with effect from 1.1.2006.
Some of the States, especially the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K stated that they have got serious financial constraint and some of the States have already implemented 6th Pay Commission and there exists disparity in the recommendations between 6th Pay Commission and pay scale suggested by Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which should be avoided. It is submitted that these States would be further financially burdened if present Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations are accepted. They also submitted that they should get assistance from Union of India for implementation of these recommendations. Their contention is that the pay scales to be paid to the Judicial Officers would be much higher then what is being paid to other Executives of the States. It was, therefore, suggested that so much of increase in pay scale be avoided, which is likely to become an eyesore.
The same plea was raised when this Court directed to implement Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. This Court observed in All India Judges' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC p.247, which is as follows:
"22. The learned Solicitor-General, however, submitted
that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the
Union of India should bear 50 per cent of the total expense
was inconsistent with the constitutional set-up. Had there
been an All-India Judicial Service, then the Union of India
may have been under an obligation to bear the expense, but
as the State Governments had not agreed to the
establishment of the All-India Judicial Service and no
legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by
Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the
Central Government to bear 50 per cent of the expense on
the judicial system. The learned Solicitor-General
submitted that the obligation to meet the expenses of the
judicial service, except for the Supreme Court and the
courts in the Union Territories, was on the State
Governments. He contended that when allocation of funds
between the Centre and the States takes place the expenses
which the States are required to meet in connection with
the administration of justice is a factor which is taken
into consideration. The provision for devolution of funds
from the Union to the States is either by assignment of
taxes or distribution of taxes or by grants-in-aid. As and
when the need arises, either the Finance Commission or the
Union of India allocates more funds to the States.
23. It has not been disputed that at present the
entire expense on the administration of justice in the
States is incurred by the respective States. It is their
responsibility and they discharge the same. Logically, if
there is to be any increase in the expenditure on the
judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the
resources in such a way whereby they can meet the
expenditure on the judiciary for discharging their
constitutional obligations. Merely because there is an
increase in the financial burden as a result of the Shetty
Commission Report being accepted, can be no ground for
fastening liability on the Union of India when none exists
at present. Accordingly, disagreeing on this point with
Justice Shetty Commission recommendations, we direct that
the entire expenditure on account of the recommendations of
the Justice Shetty Commission, as accepted, be borne by the
respective States. It is for the States to increase the
court fee or to approach the Finance Commission or the
Union of India for more allocation of funds. They can also
mobilise their resources in order to meet the financial
obligation. If such a need arises and the States approach
the Financial Commission or the Union of India for
allocation of more funds, we have no doubt that such a
request shall be favourably considered."
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions as advanced by some of the States cannot be accepted.
The States of West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh informed that they have implemented the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. There is some difference of opinion as regards certain allowances payable to the judicial officers, otherwise, they have fully implemented Justice Padmanabhan Committee. The High Courts of these States should endeavor to iron out the creases and have discussions with State Governments and should sort out the differences at the earliest. If there is any difficulty, it could be brought to the notice of this Court.
Most of the States have contended that they have implemented 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.2006 but in some States they have implemented from 1st April,2010, therefore, they would not be in a position to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee with effect from 1.1.2006. We are unable to accept this contention. All the States are hereby directed to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations with effect from 1.1.2006. There should be uniformity and all the States should implement recommendations and shall raise the pay scale allowances from 1.1.2006 and shall pay arrears of salary, if any.
However, with an intention to give maximum benefits to the Judicial Officers, following modalities are worked out, with regard to payment of arrears of pay scales. 60% of the arrears be paid in cash spread over in two
financial years and 40% be deposited in the Provident Fund account forthwith in the respective account of the Judicial Officers. We reiterate that if in any State the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are more beneficial to the Judicial Officers, they will continue to be benefited to that extent.
The State of Andhra Pradesh has already issued a Notification accepting the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee report. We make the A.P. Government's Order dated 01.05.2010,as a part of this order (marked as Annexure-A) so that the same could be followed by other States also.
The Secretaries/Law Secretaries/Registrars/Registrar Generals of all the States/High Courts are present in this Court and their presence is dispensed with. Consequently, the I.A.s in respect of their presence are disposed of. We highly appreciate the cooperation rendered by these officers during the course of hearing.
Justice Padmanabhan Committee has made some recommendations regarding allowances. The respective States/High Courts are directed to submit their objections, if any, positively within eight weeks. This is, of course, in case they are not able to sort out the differences themselves
List after eight weeks for directions regarding allowances and pensions.
(R.K. Dhawan) (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma)
AR-cum-PS Court Master Asstt.Registrar