Judicial officers Pension – – SCOI vide Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023 already directed that all arrears of pay be cleared by 30.06.2023 – In this regard, it is directed that compliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union Territories by 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited into the accounts of the concerned officers

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FULL BENCH

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION — Appellant

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent

( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., V. Ramasubramanian and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643 of 2015 with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6471-6473 of 2020 with Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 711 of 2022, 36 of 2023, 37 of 2023, 38 of 2023, 39 of 2023, 40 of 2023, 848 of 2023 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643 of 2015

Decided on : 19-05-2023

Judicial Service – Judicial officers Pension – In the case of payment of arrears of pay, this Court had by Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023 already directed that all arrears of pay be cleared by 30.06.2023 – In this regard, it is directed that compliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union Territories by 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited into the accounts of the concerned officers – The revised rates of pension, which have been approved by this Court, shall be payable from 01.07.2023 – For the payment of arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits as well, following the Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, it is directed that 25% will be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and the remaining 50% by 31.12.2023.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advovate, (A.C.) Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Advovate, Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Advovate, Ms. Arti Gupta, Advovate, Ms. Kanti, Advovate, Mr. Gourab Banerjee, Sr. Advovate, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Advovate, Mr. VP Singh, Advovate, Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Advovate, Mr. Subhro, Advovate, Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Advovate, Mr. Venkata Supreeth, Advovate, Mr. Deepak Prakash, Advovate, Mr. Pawan Kr. Dabas, Advovate, Mr. Raneev Dahiya, Advovate, Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Advovate, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Advovate, Mr. Shyam Nair, Advovate, Mr. Vardaan Kapoor, Advovate, Ms. Vishnu Priya, Advovate, Ms. Shwetam, Advovate, Mr. Rahul Lakhera, Advovate and Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advovate, for the Appellant; Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mohd Akhil, Advovate, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advovate, Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Advovate, Mr. Wasim Qadri, Advovate, Mr. Anandh Venkataramni, Advovate, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataramani, Advovate, Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Advovate, Ms. Mansi Sood, Advovate, Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Advovate, Ms. Sonali Jain, Advovate, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Advovate, Mr. Raman Yadav, Advovate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advovate, Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Advovate, Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Advovate, Mrs. Vipasha Singh, Advovate, Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Advovate, Ms. Shivani, Advovate, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Advovate, Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Advovate, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advovate, Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Advovate, Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advovate, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advovate, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advovate, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Advovate, Mr. Rohit Bansal, Advovate, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Advovate, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advovate, Ms. Kavita Jha, Advovate, Mr. Aditeya Bali, Advovate, Mr. Remish Lakra, Advovate, Mr. Anupam Mishra, Advovate, Mr. James P. Thomas, Advovate, Mr. P. I. Jose, Advovate, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advovate, Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Advovate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Advovate, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Advovate, Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advovate, Ms. Naveen Goel, Advovate, Mr. Kartik Kaushal, Advovate, Mr. Rakshit Jain, Advovate, Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy, Advovate, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Advovate, Mr. Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Advovate, Mr. Sunando Raha, Advovate, Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Anupam Raina, Advovate, Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, Advovate, Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Advovate, Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.r, Advovate, Mr. Likhi Chand Bonsle, Advovate, Mr. Rahat Bansal, Advovate, Ms. Komal Mundhra, Advovate, Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, Advovate, Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Advovate, Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, Advovate, Mr. Arjun Garg, Advovate, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Advovate, Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Advovate, Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Advovate, Mr. Debabrata Dash, Advovate, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Advovate, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Advovate, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Advovate, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Advovate, For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Advovate, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advovate, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advovate, Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Advovate, Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advovate, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Advovate, Ms. Niti Richhariya, Advovate, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advovate, Mr. Sai Shashank, Advovate, Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Advovate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Advovate, Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Advovate, Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advovate, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Advovate, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advovate, Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G., Mr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G., Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Advovate, Ms. Payal Gupta, Advovate, Mr. Shivang Jain, Advovate, Mr. Keshav Mittal, Advovate, Ms. Amrita Verma, Advovate, Ms. Sabarni Som, Advovate, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advovate, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Advovate, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Advovate, Mr. Akshay Shrivastava, Advovate, Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Advovate, Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Advovate, Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Vinayaka S Pandit, Advovate, Mr. Rajan Parmar, Advovate, Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advovate, Ms. Divija Mahajan, Advovate, Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, A.A.G., Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Advovate, Mr. Anando Mukherjee, Advovate, Mr. Shwetank Singh, Advovate, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advovate, Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Advovate, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advovate, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advovate, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Advovate, Mr. Alim Anvar, Advovate, Ms. Manicka Priya, Advovate, Mr. Riddhi Bose, Advovate, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G., Ms. Ankita Choudhary, A.A.G., Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Advovate, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advovate, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advovate, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advovate, Ms. Shreya Saxena, Advovate, Ms. Yamini Singh, Advovate, Mr. Sourav Singh, Advovate, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advovate, General, Sr. Advovate, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advovate, Mrs. Rekha Bakshi, Advovate, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Advovate, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Advovate, Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Advovate, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Advovate, Ms. Manya Hasija, Advovate, Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Advovate, Mr. Md Sontu Mia, Advovate, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advovate, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Advovate, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advovate, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Advovate, Mr. Prang Newmai, Advovate, Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advovate, Mr. Ajay Pal, Advovate, Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Advovate, Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Advovate, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advovate, Mr. Arpit Parkash, Advovate, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Advovate, Mr. Milind Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Advovate, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Advovate, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Advovate, Ms. Sugandh Rathore, Advovate, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G., Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Advovate, Mr. Devyani Gupta, Advovate, Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Advovate, Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Advovate, Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Danish Saifi, Advovate, Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Advovate, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Advovate, Ms. Pallavi, Advovate, Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Advovate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advovate, Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advovate, Mr. Parijat Sinha, Advovate, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advovate, Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advovate, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advovate, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advovate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advovate, Mr. Aravindh S., Advovate, Mr. Abbas, Advovate, Mr. Gopal Jha, Advovate, Mr. Joydip Roy, Advovate, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advovate, Mr. Uday B. Dube, Advovate, Mr. K.Parameshwar, Advovate, Ms. Arti Gupta, Advovate, Ms. Kanti, Advovate, Mr. M. V. Mukunda, Advovate, Mr. Deepak Prakash, Advovate, Mr. Pawan Kr. Dabas, Advovate, Mr. Raneev Dahiya, Advovate, Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Advovate, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Advovate, Mr. Shyam Nair, Advovate, Mr. Vardaan Kapoor, Advovate, Ms. Vishnu Priya, Advovate, Ms. Shwetam, Advovate, Mr. Rahul Lakhera, Advovate, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advovate, Mr. K.Sudhakar Reddy, Advovate, Mr. K. Sriram, Advovate, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advovate, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Advovate, Mr. Rohit Rajershi, Advovate and Mr. Aman Bajaj, Advovate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

• All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288
• All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247
• All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170
• All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC 494
• All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 444
• All India Judges Association (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170
• All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 720
• All India Judges Association. v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 314
• Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan [(2016) 8 SCC 509
• Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1969) 2 SCR 113
• Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502
• Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Registrar, Delhi High Court [(1996) 6 SCC 323
• Commonwealth ex rel Carroll vs. Tate, 274 A.2d. 193
• Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401
• Government of NCT Delhi v All India Young Lawyers Association (2009) 14 SCC 49
• Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81
• Mohd. Hussain v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2012) 9 SCC 408
• Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2021) SCC Online All 1090
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441
• State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC 219
• State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1

JUDGMENT

INDEX

2. The SNJPC’s Report and the Orders of this Court

3. Submissions of Counsel

4. Principles Evolved for Judicial Pay, Pension and Allowances

I. Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions

II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political Executive

III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of the Basic Structure

IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice Ensures Implementation of Part III of the Constitution

V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District Judiciary and Higher Judiciary

V.0 Recommendations on pay

V.1 Orders of this Court on SNJPC Recommendations on Pay

V.2 Consideration of Recommendations on Pay

I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the All India Pattern (Recommendation 44.1)

II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model (Recommendation 44.2, 44.3)

III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application (Recommendations 44.4-44.6)

IV. Increments (Recommendation 44.7, 44.11)

V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay Matrix System (Recommendations 44.8, 44.9, 44.10)

VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 44.12)

VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order dated 27.07.2022 (Modification of Recommendation No.44.13)

VIII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government (Recommendation 44.14)

IX. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div) (Recommendation 44.15 (i))

X. Delay in Grant of ACP (Recommendation 44.15(ii))

XI. Changes in Percentage of District Judges (Selection Grade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale) (Recommendation 44.16)

XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (Recommendation 44.19)

XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra (Recommendation 44.18)

XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Class) and Special Metropolitan Magistrates (Recommendation 44.19)

6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITY AND AGE OF RETIREMENT ETC.

7. Considerations of Recommendations on Pension, Gratuity etc

I. No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On or After 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 39.1)

II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the Last Drawn Pay

III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix (Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4).

IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who Retired Prior to 01.01.1996 (Recommendation no. 39.5)

V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating pension (Recommendation no. 39.6)

VI. Recommendations on Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 4.1 to 4.4)

VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)

VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)

IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age

X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of Death

XI. Recommendations on Assistance to Pensioners

XII. Recommendations on Abolition of New Pension Scheme

8. Consequential Directions

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. –

1. Introduction to pay commissions

1. The District Judiciary[1] is the backbone of the judicial system. Vital to the judicial system is the independence of the judicial officers serving in the District Judiciary. To secure their impartiality, it is important to ensure their financial security and economic independence. To this end, at the instance of the All India Judges Association, this Court, in 1993 found the need to state that there must be a Judicial Pay Commission, separate and independent from the Executive in order to ensure that the system of checks and balances are in place, and the Judiciary has a say in their pay and service conditions.[2]

2. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the First National Judicial Pay Commission (‘FNJPC’) was constituted by the Government of India by Resolution dated 21.03.1996. The FNJPC, headed by Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, submitted a comprehensive report on 11.11.1999. This comprehensive report contained recommendations on pay, pension and allowances as well as other service conditions pertaining to the district judiciary. After prolonged proceedings, on 21.03.2002, this Court approved the recommendations of the FNJPC pertaining to emoluments with certain modifications relating to allowances.[3] Notably, the recommendations were accepted with effect from 01.01.1996. This was because the employees of the Central Government were given the benefits of the 5th Central Pay Commission from that date.

3. Within the next few years, the Central Government appointed the 6th Central Pay Commission, and the Commission made its recommendations which were accepted from 01.01.2006. To ensure that the District Judiciary does not lag behind, this Court once again stepped in at the instance of the very same All India Judges Association. This Court appointed a One-Person Commission headed by Justice E Padmanabhan (Retd Judge of the High Court of Madras) by Order dated 28.04.2009. The One-Person Commission once again submitted a report, which was accepted by this Court by Order dated 20.04.2010.[4] The revised pay scales, which are currently in force, as recommended by this Commission, were made effective from 01.01.2006.

2. The SNJPC’s Report and the Orders of this Court

4. Ten years later, the 7th Central Pay Commission submitted its report and its recommendations were accepted by the Central Government with effect from 01.01.2016. Correspondingly, in the present writ petition, once again at the instance of the All India Judges Association, this Court has been called upon to intervene and update/upgrade the service conditions of the judicial officers.

5. This Court by the order dated 09.05.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 643/2015 appointed the Second National Judicial Pay Commission headed by Justice P.V. Reddi (Retd.) as its Chairman with Senior Advocate R Basant (Former Judge) as its Member[5]. Pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court, the Government of India, by its Resolution dated 10.11.2017[6], constituted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (‘Commission/SNJPC’). As per the Resolution, the terms of reference of the Commission are as follows:

6. It is seen from the Report of the Commission that it held region-wise consultative conferences in the cities of Guwahati, Mumbai, Kolkata, Kochi, Delhi, Chandigarh, Chennai, Lucknow, Bhopal, Visakhapatnam and Srinagar where long deliberations took place with the representatives of the All India Judges’ Association, All India Retired Judges’ Association, State Associations, officials of the Registry and deputed officers of High Courts and senior government officers. A perusal of the Report indicates that the Commission has analyzed the representations from various sources and periodically consulted with several experts while preparing working sheets and calculations.

7. After wide consultation, the Commission realized a need for interim relief to be granted to judicial officers as their pay had not been increased for more than 10 years. Thus, they submitted a Report on Interim Relief to this Court 09.03.2018. Considering that the judicial officers were without updated/upgraded pay, this Court, by order dated 27.03.2018, directed the States and the Union of India to implement the recommendations of the Commission with regard to interim relief.

8. Subsequently, on 29.01.2020, the Commission submitted its Final Report to this Court. The Report has recommendations which cover Pay Structure (Volume I), Pension and Family Pension (Volume III) and Allowances (Volume IV). A separate part of the report viz., Part II deals with the issue of establishing a permanent mechanism to determine subjects of service conditions of the District Judiciary.

9. This Court took cognizance of the Report on 28.02.2020. For the assistance of the Court, amici curiae were appointed. The States and the Union of India were directed to file their objections, if any, to the Report. The Court observed that over the years, the primary objection to the implementation of the various directions concerning the service conditions of the district judiciary is the alleged paucity of financial resources, and rejected this objection even before the States could raise it.

3. Submissions of Counsel

10. The Amicus Curiae, K Parameshwar placed the recommendations of the Commission and its reasoning before this Court. Detailed notes of submissions have been filed by the amicus curiae tabulating the recommendations and supplementing the same with additional reasoning. He also detailed the objections put forward by the States and the Union and rebutted them with clarity.

11. The Amicus Curiae also laid stress on the principles on which the recommendations of the Commission draw their strength. He broadly suggested five principles for the consideration of the Court. Firstly, he submitted that the independence of the district judiciary is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. He stated that the judgments of the Court, thus far, have recognized the principle of independence of judiciary only in the context of the High Courts and the Supreme Court and submitted that this principle ought to equally apply to the District Judiciary.

12. He then submitted that the principle of independence of the judiciary is an integral part of Part III of the Constitution, as it ensures a guarantee to a fair trial. He argued that therefore, the independence of the judiciary must be seen as a guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution.

13. The third principle, in his submission, was that the doctrine of inherent powers, as noticed by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 and suggested by the Report of the Task Force on Judicial Impact Assessment (chaired by Justice (Retd) M Jagannadha Rao) would require the Judiciary to compel payment of reasonable sums of money to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. To this end, he also relied on Article 50 of the Constitution which mandates that ‘The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.’

14. He then submitted, relying on the Order dated 05.04.2023[7] passed by this Court in the review proceedings, that there is an equivalence of core judicial function between Judicial Officers in the District Judiciary and the Judges of the High Court. Therefore, he submitted that the increase in pay of the High Court judges must equally reflect in the increase of pay of judicial officers of the District Judiciary.

15. Lastly, he submitted that in a unified judicial system, the service conditions, designations etc. must be uniform across the country. He relied on the judgment of this Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288 as well as the reports of the FNJPC and SNJPC to contend that the uniformity must be maintained across the country in terms of pay and designation of the District Judiciary.

16. The Petitioners, i.e., the All India Judges Association were represented by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate. He supported the Report of the SNJPC and supported the arguments made by the amicus curiae. He also brought to the attention of this Court a recent decision in Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401 to defend the recommendation of the Commission on the accrual of last increment for the purposes of pension. He also sought to support the recommendation of the Commission on additional quantum of pension to be given from the age of 75 years by contending that the same is not only reasonable but is also already given by a number of States from an even younger age. In this regard, he also submitted that the age of retirement of district judges is lower than that of High Court and Supreme Court judges and therefore, they must be entitled to retiral benefits at a younger age.

17. The arguments on behalf of the All India Retired Judges Association were put forward by V Giri, Senior Advocate. While supporting the contentions made by the Amicus Curiae as well as Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate, he reiterated the need for an urgent implementation of the Report of the SNJPC, especially in respect of pension to be paid to retired officers.

18. The counter-arguments were led by KM Nataraj, the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India who appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was also supplemented by Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG for Tamil Nadu, Ms Pratishtha Vij, counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Nachiketa Joshi, Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Ajay Pal, Counsel for the State of Punjab, Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Counsel for the State of West Bengal, Shuvodeep Roy, Counsel for the State of Assam, Shailesh Madiyal, Counsel for the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Counsel for the State of Manipur, Deepanwita Priyanka, Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat, B.K. Satija, AAG for the State of Haryana, Kuldeep Singh Parihar, Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand appearing for the States.

19. They firstly contended that the multiplier of 2.81 cannot be applied to the District Judiciary across the cadres. It is their argument that the 7th CPC recommended a graded pay increase across different cadres of the employees of the Central Government and therefore, the same has to be applied even for the judiciary. Thereafter, they once again argued that the States do not have sufficient financial resources to meet the increase in pay as suggested by the SNJPC. As regards the recommendation on increment to be accrued for the purposes of pension to the judicial officer in spite of her retirement, they contended that since the applicable Rules in their State do not provide for such accrual for Government Employees, the same cannot be given to judicial officers. The States also opposed the grant of retirement gratuity as suggested by the SNJPC. They argued that their State Rules which are prevalent provide for a uniform rate across cadres and services in the State and therefore, the recommendation cannot be accepted by them. Lastly, they contended that the minimum eligibility for Family Pension must be less than Rs. 30,000, as suggested by the Commission.

20. Before considering the recommendations of the SNJPC on pay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc., it is necessary to consider certain principles concerning judiciary that have a direct bearing on our decision on the recommendations.

4. Principles Evolved for Judicial Pay, Pension and Allowances

21. This Court has dealt with three different Judicial Pay Commission and has evolved certain principles, which form the underpinning of judicial pay, pension and allowances. The first principle is that a unified judiciary requires uniform designations and service conditions of judicial officers across the country. The second principle is that the independence of the judiciary requires that pay of judicial officers must be stand-alone and not compared to that of staff of the political executive or the legislature. The third principle is that the independence of the judiciary, which includes the District Judiciary, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The fourth principle is that the access to an independent judiciary enforces fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The fifth principle is that the essential function of all judicial officers in the District Judiciary and judges of the High Court and this Court is essentially the same.

I. Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions

22. India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of the Constitution. A unified judiciary necessarily entails that the service conditions of judges of one state are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to ensure that the judicial system is uniform, effective and efficient in its functioning. Efficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacity to be provided with the right incentives and promotion opportunities to maintain the high level of functioning of the judiciary.

23. This Court in All India Judges Association (II)[8] has noted the position of law and observed that uniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. It was held:

II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political Executive

24. Separation of powers demands that the officers of the Judiciary be treated separately and distinct from the staff of the legislative and executive wings. It must be remembered the judges are not employees of the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power. In that sense, they are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in the executive. Parity, thus, cannot be claimed between staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicial wing. This Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India,[9] explained the distinction and held that those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. Thus, there cannot be any objection that judicial officers receive pay which is not at par with executive staff. In this context, it may also be remembered that Article 50 of the Constitution directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the Executive.

25. This distinction is also important because judicial independence from the executive and the legislature requires the judiciary to have a say in matters of their finances. This Court has previously noted that theoretically, allowing the Executive to decide the pay of the judiciary may lead to unintended consequences.[10] Therefore, to secure true independence of the judiciary, this Court has recognized that the pay of judicial officers is separate and distinct from the pay of staff of other wings of the State. This, it may be noted, is nothing but an articulation of the doctrine of inherent powers. This doctrine mandates that the judiciary must possess the inherent power to ‘compel payment of those sums of money which are reasonable and necessary to carry out its mandated responsibilities, and its powers and duties to administer justice.’[11] This doctrine is only the logical conclusion of separation of powers and ensures that the independence of the judiciary is secured.

26. The submission of the States that there is a paucity of financial resources must be examined from this aspect of the matter. The States and the Union have repeatedly stated that the burden on the financial resources of the States/Union due to the Report of the SNJPC is significant and therefore the Report cannot be implemented. Without the doctrine of inherent powers, any de-funding of the Judiciary cannot be repelled.

27. Apart from this, Judicial Officers have been working without a pay revision for nearly 15 years. A pay revision has been recommended in accordance with the law laid down by this Court and a report submitted by a Judicial Pay Commission after considering this very objection. This Court has also examined this issue of paucity of financial resources on at least three occasions in these very proceedings. In the Order dated 28.02.2020, which took cognizance of the Report of the SNJPC, this Court stated that it hoped that ‘the same objections, which have been rejected by this Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, will not be re-agitated. The Court in the aforesaid judgment observed that compared to the other plan and non-plan expenditures, the financial burden caused on account of the directions given therein are negligible.’ [12] However, the States and the Union raised this objection in their affidavits before this Court.

28. After going through the affidavits of the States and the Union, this Court on 27.07.2022 found that in contrast to the 7th Central Pay Commission, which was implemented from 01.01.2016, judicial officers have not received any similar benefit. Thus, the Court held that ‘there is a need to at least implement the revised pay structure immediately so as to alleviate the sufferings of the judicial officers.’[13] The Court, after considering the objections of the Union and the State rejected the same and accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended by the SNJPC. Aggrieved by the acceptance of the Report, the Union filed a review petition before this Court. This Court by Order dated 05.04.2023 dismissed the review petitions and found that the financial implications cannot be considered as excessive in view of the information given by the SNJPC.[14] Still, the States and the Union have raised this objection after its express rejection twice over. The rejection of their objection is also reiterated. Judicial Officers cannot be left in the lurch for prolonged periods of time without a revision of pay on an alleged paucity of financial resources.

29. This Court in its Review Order dated 05.04.2023 has explained this position in the following words:

III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of the Basic Structure

30. This Court has repeatedly held that the independence of the judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.[15] However, the pronouncements of the Court have been in the context of the High Court and the Supreme Court and not in the context of the District Judiciary. The District Judiciary performs an important role in upholding the rule of law. As noted in the Review Order dated 05.04.2023:

31. The independence of the District Judiciary must also be equally a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Without impartial and independent judges in the District Judiciary, Justice, a preambular goal[16] would remain illusory. The District Judiciary is, in most cases, also the Court which is most accessible to the litigant. The Amicus Curiae submitted that on a single day, the District Judiciary handled nearly 11.3 lakh cases. It was seen that during the period of the pandemic as well, the District Judiciary was yet efficient and undertook its functions to ensure that justice is delivered in a timely manner. It is thus important to recognize that the District Judiciary is a vital part of the independent judicial system, which is, in turn, part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice Ensures Implementation of Part III of the Constitution

32. Any interpretation of Part III of the Constitution would also require that effective and speedy disposal of cases be done by an independent District Judiciary. This Court has repeatedly held that the right of free and fair trial forms part of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.[17] For instance, in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan [(2016) 8 SCC 509, para 31], this Court recognized that ‘access to justice’ inheres in Articles 14 and 21. This Court held:

33. The right of fair trial and access to justice, as contemplated by this Court, is not limited to the physical access to a Court. The right must also include all the necessary prerequisites of a Court, i.e., the infrastructure, and an unbiased, impartial, and independent judge. At the cost of repetition, for most litigants in this country, as the only physically accessible institution for accessing justice is the District Judiciary, the independence of district judiciary assumes even greater significance.

34. One may go to the extent to state that the rights of ‘access to justice’ and ‘fair trial’ cannot be exercised by an individual without an independent judiciary. Further, without fair and speedy trial, the remaining rights, including fundamental and constitutional rights will not be enforced in a manner known to law. If these instrumental rights themselves are hindered, then all other rights within the Constitution would not be enforceable.

V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District Judiciary and Higher Judiciary

35. The essential function of the District Judiciary, as also the function of the High Courts and this Court is to administer justice impartially and independently. This Court in its Review Order observed:

36. Together, the Courts constitute the unified judicial system performing for the core and essential function of administering justice. To be truly unified both in form and in substance, there must be integration in terms of pay, pension and other service conditions between the District Judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court. To this end, under Article 125 and 221 of the Constitution, the salaries etc. payable to the judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court are fixed by law as made by Parliament. The salaries for judges of the High Court are the same across the country by virtue of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

37. Given that in the hierarchy of the unified judicial system a Judge of the High Court is placed above a District Judge, it follows that a District Judge cannot have more pay more than a High Court judge. Therefore, the maximum ceiling of pay that a District Judge may earn is the salary of a High Court judge which is fixed under the aforementioned statute. Once the salary of the District Judge is pegged against the High Court judge, it thus follows that any increase in the salary of the judges of the High Court must reflect in the same proportion to the judges in the District Judiciary. In the Review Order, this Court observed:

38. Having considered the constitutional foundations on the basis of which the recommendations of the SNJPC are to be considered, we will now proceed to examine the recommendations with respect to pay, pension, gratuity etc.

V.0 Recommendations on pay

39. We will first deal with the recommendation of SNJPC on pay structure. A summary of the relevant recommendations of SNJPC on pay are tabulated hereinbelow:

V.1 Orders of this Court on SNJPC Recommendations on Pay

40. This Court has subsequently passed three detailed orders dealing with the objections of the States and the Union and rejected the same. The first is Order dated 27.07.2022,[18] the second is Order dated 18.01.2023 and the final one is Order dated 05.04.2023. In the first Order, this Court accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended by SNJPC. By Order dated 18.01.2023, this Court granted additional time to some States to comply with the Order dated 27.07.2022. Thereafter, some States and the Union filed review petitions against the Order dated 27.07.2022 passed by this Court. This Court dismissed the reviews on 05.04.2023.[19] Thus, most of the recommendations of the SNJPC on the pay structure have become final.

V.2 Consideration of Recommendations on Pay

41. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pay are considered hereinbelow.

I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the All India Pattern (Recommendation 44.1)

42. As stated above, in India, the judiciary is unified. The designations of judges, therefore, ought to be uniform across the country. In this regard, the FNJPC suggested the following nomenclature to be adopted pan-India:

43. A thorough examination by the SNJPC revealed that these designations have not been adopted in few states. It was stated by the Commission that the State of Kerala still designates its judges as Munsiff and ‘subordinate Judge’. In the North-Eastern States too, it was seen that there was some divergence of designation. Uniformity would require these to be amended in order to be brought under the same umbrella. Pertinently, this recommendation had been accepted in the FNJPC by virtue of judgment in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288.[20] We may only reiterate that this direction be followed by the High Courts and all High Courts amend their designations in conformity with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC.

44. It is also relevant to note that in light of the pay matrix suggested by the SNJPC, without uniform designations, issues may arise in the future for fitment of the different designations which are used in the different states. Such complications ought to be avoided by this Court.

45. This Court thus accepts the recommendation of the Commission. Consequently, the High Courts are directed to ensure that the designation of judicial officers is uniformly the same as mentioned in the above paragraphs.

II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model (Recommendation 44.2, 44.3)

46. The SNJPC has recommended that the pay matrix model, which was adopted by the 7th Central Pay Commission be adopted for Judicial Officers as well. This is desirable as it simplifies the matter of pay for judges. Notably, this Court has already accepted this recommendation by Order dated 27.07.2022.[21] This has been confirmed in Order dated 05.04.2023. As the recommendation of the SNJPC is only to bring the pay structure in conformity with the 7th Central Pay Commission, there cannot be any objection on these recommendations. Thus, it is directed that the pay structure of the Judicial Officers be modified suitably, reflecting the recommendations suggested by the SNJPC.

III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application (Recommendations 44.444.6)

47. The Multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 has been suggested by the SNJPC to be applied to all cadres of judicial officers. The objection of the States and the Union is that the IoR of 2.81 has not been suggested by the 7th CPC to all cadres of officers. It is their say that when the Central Pay Commission adopted a graduated fitment factor ranging from 2.57 for entry level officers to 2.81 for officers of the level of Secretary to the Government of India, the judicial officers could not have been granted a uniform multiplier/IoR of 2.81.

48. Their submission is erroneous because, as stated above, the pay of judicial officers is to be increased commensurate to the pay of the Judges of High Courts. When the judges of the High Courts were granted a multiplier of 2.81, the judicial officers were also to be granted the same multiplier. This has been the precedent set by the previous Judicial Pay Commissions and endorsed by this Court repeatedly.[22]

49. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that this Court has already rejected the objections of the States and the Union and consequently accepted the multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 in Order dated 27.07.2022[23] and Order dated 05.04.2023[24]. As stated above, the principled basis of the acceptance is that the pay of judicial officers in the District Judiciary can only be based on the pay of Judges of the High Court. This is because the Judiciary is independent from the Executive and as such, all aspects including pay cannot be based on the pay granted to the officers of the Executive Wing.

50. It is thus reiterated that the recommendation that the multiplier/index of rationalization as suggested by the SNJPC be accepted. Consequently, it is directed that the pay of the judicial officers be increased as per the Table-I annexed to the Order dated 27.07.2022.

IV. Increments (Recommendation 44.7, 44.11)

51. The SNJPC did not recommend any change in the existing system of accrual of increment once a year as per the date of appointment or promotion or the date of financial upgradation. The sole change it suggested was that judicial officers should have the benefit of increment falling due the next day following their retirement. The Commission suggested that this benefit of an additional increment shall be for the purposes of pension only and shall be subject to a vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.

52. An additional increment can be given to a retiring officer when he is not in service on the date of accrual. This is because the increment is a benefit for the year of service already rendered. Therefore, the last pay, for the purposes of calculation of pension should include the increment payable to the judicial officer.

53. Three sets of decisions had been rendered by different High Courts regarding this. The first view, which was taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Allahabad, is that when the increment becomes due the next day after retirement, the employee ought not to be denied the benefit of the increment for the purposes of pay. The second view, which was taken by the High Courts of Madras, Orissa and Delhi is that the increment would accrue to officers only for the purpose of pension alone. The third view, taken by the Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts is that the increment cannot be granted to the officers.

54. The law has now been settled by this Court in a recent judgment Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani., (2023) SCC Online SC 401 at para 18. This Court approved the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad’s view in Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India[25] it was held:

55. In such circumstances, the recommendations of the Commission in so far as it notionally grants the increment for the purposes of pension is completely justified. As a consequence of the acceptance of the recommendation, the calculation of pension must notionally include the increment for the purposes of calculation of pension. This will also obviate any confusion. It is therefore directed that the High Courts amend the applicable rule to state that the increment which becomes due to the judicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally included in the calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.

V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay Matrix System (Recommendations 44.8, 44.9, 44.10)

56. The Court notes that the Commission has recommended the formula and method to ensure that the migration from the master pay scale to the pay matrix system is smooth. The Commission has devised the follow fitment/migration formula:

57. In order to make matters clear, the Commission has also given illustrations so as to simplify the fitment/migration formula for the relevant authorities. These illustrations ought to be considered by the authorities while encoding the rules for the migration to the pay matrix system.[26] It may be noted that the Commission has submitted a Corrigendum to its Report in March 2021 which has removed certain arithmetical mistakes from the Fitment Table. This is reflected in Part III of the Report dated March 2021.

58. It may be noted that a similar formula and illustrations have also been devised for fixation of pay of judicial officers who were promoted on or after 01.01.2016 in the following terms:

The examples provided by the Commission also proceed thereafter to lend clarity to the formula for promotes as well.

59. While accepting this recommendation for fitment/migration as amended by the Corrigendum dated March 2021, it is also noted that the examples must form part of the relevant rules that are required to be encoded by the High Courts, the States and the Union. Therefore, we accept the recommendation and direct the authorities to implement the same keeping in mind the examples that have been given by the Commission, as stated above.

VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 44.12)

60. The 7th Central Pay Commission came into force from 01.01.2016. However, the last pay revision of the judicial officers was with effect from 01.01.2006. More than 17 years have passed since the judicial officers have received a pay revision. Noting this, the recommendation must be accepted by this Court. Pertinently, this has already been noticed by this Court in its Order dated 27.07.2022.[27] Further, the previous Judicial Pay Commissions had also recommended revision of pay with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively. No objection can therefore be made regarding the application of the pay structure from 01.01.2016. This recommendation thus merits acceptance. Thus, it is directed that the benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be given effect to with effect from 01.01.2016.

VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order dated 27.07.2022 (Modification of Recommendation No.44.13)

61. While the Commission suggested that the arrears of pay be given during the calendar year 2020, this Court after considering the submissions of the Union and the State that the payment of arrears at one go may not be possible and by Order dated 27.07.2022 directed that the payments be made in three separate installments. As per this Order as well, the final installment was payable by 30.06.2023. States had already sought extension of time to complete payments in the first two instalments. Considering the grievances of the States, by Order dated 18.01.2023, this Court directed:

VIII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government (Recommendation 44.14)

62. The recommendation of the SNJPC is that Dearness Allowance may be paid at the rate fixed by the Central Government. It may be noted that the Commission has found that the rates fixed by the Central Government are normally accepted by the State across the country. The purpose of dearness allowance, as explained by this Court in Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1969) 2 SCR 113, is ‘to neutralise a portion of the increase in the cost of living.’ When the rates which are fixed by the Central Government are followed by most of the States, the recommendation of the SNJPC is reasonable. This recommendation is also in the interests of uniformity of service conditions of judicial officers across the country, which, as stated above, is a cardinal principle on the basis of which the present proceedings are based. Notably, a fixed rate of Dearness Allowance would also ensure that there is no lag in the accrual of the dearness allowance to the judicial officers.

63. Various States such as West Bengal, Assam, Nagaland and Manipur are agreeable to rates fixed by the Central Government. The States of Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, and Mizoram have argued that their rates must be adopted. Other States have not specifically stated anything with regard of rates of DA. It is observed that that a uniform rate of DA would achieve the goals of uniformity as well as efficiency. In such circumstances, the recommendation deserves acceptance.

IX. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div) (Recommendation 44.15 (i))

64. The Commission suggested that the 1st Assured Career Progression be given to the Civil Judges (Jr Div) be granted on the basis of relaxed norms of performance. At present, a Civil Judge (Jr Div) would be entitled to the first ACP only after completing 5 years of service. A Civil Judge (Jr Div) is normally in the process of learning the work in his first two years. Assessment of the officer’s performance when the first two years are riddled with trainings and deputations cannot be done in a serious manner. This is especially so when, for the first two years, no real work output is expected out of the judicial officer.

Therefore, the inability of the Officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of judicial career need not be viewed seriously, especially having regard to the objective behind the ACP.

65. Another aspect is that judicial officers serving in the cadre of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) have only two promotional avenues available to them, i.e., Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and District Judge. Without any promotional avenues, the stagnation in the service causes loss of morale to judicial officers which has a direct bearing on their independence.

66. It may be noted that the Limited Competitive Examination which has been introduced by virtue of this Hon’ble Court’s judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India[28] only applies to the cadre of Civil Judges (Sr. Div.) to the cadre of District Judges. The percentage reserved for LCE was initially 25%. This was reduced to 10% by All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India[29].

67. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, relaxed the aforesaid conditions only for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services in so far as it permits candidates with experience of 10 years to appear for the Limited Competitive Examination for becoming District Judges.[30] At the same time, it is noticed that the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 envisages an additional method for promotion for Civil Judges (Jr Div) by conducting a separate Limited Competitive Examination for them to be promoted to the position of Civil Judges (Sr Div).[31] It may be noted that there is no rule for the participation of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) in the Limited Competitive Examination to be recruited as District Judge.

68. As regards the relaxed norms which could apply for the 1st ACP, it is noted that the SNJPC has recommended that the scrutiny for the grant of First ACP will be limited to ascertaining whether there is anything positively adverse such as there is any poor/unsatisfactory performance or there being an adverse report of serious nature leading to the inference that the officer is unfit to have the benefit of the 1^st ACP. A similar provision already exists in Rule 3(5) of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008. This Rule prescribes that for the 1st ACP, the ACR rating required is only ‘Average’ and for the 2nd ACP, the Judicial Officer needs to be rated ‘Good’ for five continuous years. Such a rule is only an illustration. High Courts may devise other methods for these relaxed norms.

69. It is thus directed that the grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div) be given on the basis of relaxed norms which may be devised by the High Courts, with reference to the suggestions of the Commission.

X. Delay in Grant of ACP (Recommendation 44.15(ii))

70. A perusal of the Commission’s Report at para 19.4 and 19.5 shows that, in many states, the grant of ACP scale is delayed. The Commission found that in certain jurisdictions, even after completion of more than 10 years of service, ACP was not granted to Civil Judges (Jr Div) and Civil Judges (Sr Div). This is unpardonable. Stagnation of careers of judicial officers due to administrative delays causes loss of morale and enthusiasm in vital stages of their careers, where they are entitled to be considered for career progression.

71. The SNJPC’s finding that the lack of timely preparation and scrutiny of ACR is the primary reason behind delay is concerning. ACRs are bound to be done in a timely manner and without delay so as to ensure that the whole judicial system is functioning in an efficient manner. Accordingly, the High Courts may be directed to ensure that the delay in making ACRs is avoided in the future.

72. Separately, to avoid this delay in the future, the Commission suggested that the process of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 months in advance from the date on which the judicial officers will be completing 5/10 years and the financial benefits should be paid to the judicial officer within a period of 6 months after the judicial officer steps into the 6th/ 11th year of Service. Therefore, the Commission recommended that if grant of ACP is delayed for every year, one additional increment shall be granted for every year of delay subject to the adjustment with the ACP arrears.

73. The recommendations of the Commission are reasonable. As stated above, delays ought to be avoided on the administrative side which have the effect of stagnating the career of a judicial officer. The suggestions of the Commission will bring about much needed efficiency and perhaps, a standard operating procedure for the grant of ACP in a timely manner. Thus, the recommendation merits acceptance.

XI. Changes in Percentage of District Judges (Selection Grade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale) (Recommendation 44.16)

74. The Commission has recommended the increase of percentage of district judges who will be entitled to District Judge (Selection Grade) and District Judge (Super Time Scale). The reasoning of the Commission is that due to the limited percentage of District Judge (Super Time Scale) and District Judge (Selection Grade), many judges from larger states are unable to reach higher posts before retirement even though they have spent considerable time in the District Judge Cadre. It also found that as of October, 2019 only 1515 judges out of a cadre strength of 7382 district judges were getting the benefit of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale.

75. The benefits of Super Time Scale and Selection Grade not reaching a majority of district judges prior to their retirement is a situation that should be avoided. The recommendation of the Commission that the Selection grade and Super Time Scale posts should be increased by 10% and 5% respectively merits acceptance. Essentially, this would entail that the District Judges at Entry level shall be 50%, selection grade 35% and Super Time Scale – 15% of the total cadre strength of District Judges.

76. The Recommendations 44.16 (ii) and (iii) are regarding the upgradation to be given to District Judges by applying the principle of seniority-cum-merit and further that if the post remains or continues for three years it shall form part of cadre strength. These recommendations of the SNJPC may be considered at the appropriate stage as they do not have a bearing on the issues of pay, which are being considered by this Court at this stage.

XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (Recommendation 44.19)

77. Though Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, both statutory courts created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947[32] are not presided over by judicial officers, they are entitled to equal pay as district judges based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Following this principle, this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar[33] and State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn.[34] held that judicial officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunal ought to be considered on par with judicial officers. The recommendation of the Tribunal that the pay revision be extended to judges of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts, thus merits acceptance as it is only an extension of the law laid down by this Court.

XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra (Recommendation 44.18)

78. The Commission noticed that the Judges in the Family Courts in Maharashtra are recruited through a separate process and the officers form part of a separate cadre. At the same time, Rule 8 of the Judges of the Family Courts (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Maharashtra Rules, 1990 also provides that the judge shall draw pay and allowances at par with the judges (Principal Judge, Additional Principal Judge and Judge respectively) of the City Civil Court, Bombay and at other places pay and allowances as admissible to the District Judge.

79. The recommendation of the Commission is that the Judges of the Family Court also be entitled to the benefit of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale as well. The Commission further recommends that quarters also be given to them from the general pool of accommodation.

80. The recommendation of the SNJPC is in line with the same principles mentioned above in as laid down by this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar[35] and State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn.[36] for Labour Courts. When equal work is done by the judicial officers, their pay and conditions of service must also be equal. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission is accepted.

XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Class) and Special Metropolitan Magistrates (Recommendation 44.19)

81. A reading of para 36 of the report of the Commission shows that in some states, officials who have worked in the judiciary, retired executive officials possessing law degree etc. are appointed as Special Judicial Magistrates under Sections 11 and 13 of the CrPC, 1973. The Commission noted that in some states they are paid very meagre remuneration and consequently has recommended a minimum pay of Rs. 30,000 per month and a conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/-. The Commission has further recommended that this benefit shall be given from 01.04.2019.

82. The amicus has argued that even Rs. 30,000 is insufficient today and such a low amount might not meet the minimum wage requirements in certain states. Considering that under Section 261, CrPC, 1973 such Magistrates can try offences which are punishable with fine or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, such Magistrates cannot be considered as discharging judicial functions that are incomparable to regular Magistrates. As such, their financial independence is as much a part of judicial independence as is for regular Magistrates. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission modified by fixing the remuneration at Rs. 45,000/- per month plus an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- as conveyance allowance.

83. For the purpose of convenience, the recommendations and their modifications/acceptance is tabulated below:

6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITY AND AGE OF RETIREMENT ETC

84. We will now deal with the recommendations of SNJPC on Pension, Gratuity etc. For the purposes of convenience, the recommendations are set out below:

7. Considerations of Recommendations on Pension, Gratuity etc

85. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pension are considered hereinbelow.

I. No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On or After 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 39.1)

86. The Commission has not recommended any change in the current percentage of pension, fixed at 50% of last drawn pay for pension and 30% for last drawn pay for family pension. The FNJPC had also recommended this position and this Court had accepted it. Therefore, when no change is recommended, no real objections can be raised regarding the recommendation.

II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the Last Drawn Pay

87. After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the One-Person Commission, the Commission recommended that for judicial officers who retired before 01.01.2016, the revised pension should be 50% of the last drawn pay of the post held at the time of retirement. This is also unchanged in its formulation and thus remains the same.

III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix (Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4)

88. As a result of the recommendations of the SNJPC on pay, the pensioners also will be equally benefitted. The recommendation of the Commission is that the multiplier of 2.81 will equally apply to pensioners as well. As a consequence thereof, the pensioners will also be fitted into the table and pension will be paid to them on this basis. In other words, to ensure parity of pension between judicial officers who retired at the same level but under different pay scales, the pension must be brought on par. After extensive analysis, the Commission has also included certain illustrations to make its recommendations clear. The illustrations lend clarity to the recommendation and thus ought to be read along with the recommendation.

89. It may be noted that as with the recommendation on fitment in pay, the SNJPC has issued a corrigendum on fitment in its Supplemental Report dated March 2021. This Corrigendum corrects arithmetical mistakes made in the original report. Therefore, the fitment table must be construed in accordance with the corrected table on fitment.

90. There is merit in the recommendation of the Commission. The revision of pay must also reflect in the revision of pension. Therefore, the multiplier which applies to pay must also apply to pension. Consequently, the pensioners must be therefore fitted into the same scheme in the pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted.

IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who Retired Prior to 01.01.1996 (Recommendation no. 39.5)

91. The Commission noted that due to a discrepancy in the report of the One-Person Commission, the pension granted to judicial officers who retired after 2006 was not being given in parity to those who retired before 2006. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 444 (dated 08.10.2012) was apprised of the error committed by the One-Person Commission and directed this to be corrected. However, the prayer in the application was limited to post-2006 retirees. In a second[37] and third round[38] of litigation, the Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to follow its Order dated 08.10.2012 and directed revision of pension for those who retired post-1996. By way of abundant caution, the Commission recommended that those States which have not granted this benefit to those who retired before 1996, must be given the same benefit.

92. The recommendation of the Commission is only in furtherance of parity. State Governments have, in the past, been directed to undertake the consequential re-fixation before. However, if such consequential re-fixation has not been undertaken, the officers who had retired prior to 1996, and who would have aged significantly would be discriminated against. Such a situation ought to be avoided and thus the recommendation merits acceptance. This Court directs this recommendation to be implemented immediately and without delay.

V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating pension (Recommendation no. 39.6)

93. After considering the judgments rendered by this Court in Government of NCT Delhi v All India Young Lawyers Association (2009) 14 SCC 49, the Commission, recommended that the number of years of practice at the Bar subject to the maximum of weightage of 10 years shall be given while calculating pension and other retiral benefits. This Court in Government of NCT Delhi reasoned that this would be required as otherwise a direct recruit from the bar who becomes a District Judge would not be entitled to full pension. The recommendation, being the implementation of the judgment of this Court, merits acceptance. It is accordingly ordered.

VI. Recommendations on Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 4.1 to 4.4)

94. As regards family pension, the Commission has not recommended any change in the existing percentage, i.e., 30% of the last drawn pay. Therefore, this recommendation, as such, does not warrant any further deliberation as it is the mere continuation of the existing regime. The recommendation is accepted.

95. At the same time, the Commission has recommended payment of family pension @ 30% to the eligible family member after the death of the spouse. This benefit has been given in light of Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similar benefits to members of the central civil services. This recommendation is also thus accepted as it has been granted to members of the central civil services.

96. Obviously, the quantum of family pension must be increased as per the same multiplier/index of rationalization applicable for pension. This is because the same factors which are applicable to pay and pension leading to their increase also equally apply to family pension. The Commission has also recommended the same. We accept the recommendation and direct that the quantum of family pension also worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out.

97. The last recommendation is that on the income limit prescribed by States to be eligible for family pension. The minimum limit prescribed by the Commission was Rs. 30,000/-. This limit is reasonable but it must be left to the discretion of the States to prescribe a higher limit which is more beneficial to the judicial officers. Thus, the recommendation is accepted.

VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)

98. On account of the additional assistance required on increasing age, it has been the policy of the Central Government to grant additional quantum of pension. The Commission has recommended the payment of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75 years onwards at the rates mentioned in the table on p.44 of the Report.

99. It is seen that different states have different ages for the grant of additional quantum of pension and family pension. The 7th CPC suggested the age of 80 years as the minimum. High Court and Supreme Court judges also receive additional quantum of pension at the age of 80 years. It was however argued by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate that as District Judges retire at a younger age, the additional quantum of pension should accrue to them at a younger age as well.

100. Given that many of the States granted this benefit from the age of 70 and the Commission recommended the grant of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75. This reasoning of the Commission merits acceptance. If States have been granting more beneficial pension rates, it cannot be denied to the judicial officers. Judicial Officers cannot be left worse off than officers of the State. Therefore, this Court accepts this recommendation.

101. The Commission has further recommended that this benefit be paid from 01.01.2016. As with the other similar recommendations for the aspects of pay and pension, this recommendation is accepted.

102. The concern of the Commission, reflected in Recommendation No.21.3, that recovery will be initiated against officers who have been given additional pension from the age of 65 or 70 is genuine. If judicial officers have already been granted a more beneficial regime and are moved to the regime suggested by the Commission and accepted by the Court, no recovery ought to be made against them. Consequently, it is left to the States to continue the benefits upto the age of 75 years as well. These recommendations are accordingly accepted.

VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)

103. The first recommendation on Gratuity by the Commission is to bring the calculation of gratuity on par with Rule 50(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There cannot be any dispute regarding this recommendation as it is to bring about uniformity in conditions of service. Therefore, this recommendation merits acceptance by this Court.

104. The Commission further recommended that the maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. This recommendation has also been made in accordance with the Report of the 7th CPC, and the purpose of the same is to ensure that the cost of living does not make the gratuity without purpose. Therefore, this recommendation also merits acceptance by the Court.

105. The third recommendation is to make the recommendations effective from 01.01.2016. This has now been settled by this Court before and has been reiterated in the present judgment as well. The recommendations must come into force from 01.01.2016. Consequentially, those judicial officers who retired after 01.01.2016 must also benefit from the acceptance of the Report. Thus, the Commission has suggested that the differential gratuity be paid to them subject to the revised maximum limit. This is merely consequential and is accepted by this Court. It is accordingly ordered.

106. The final recommendation made by the Commission on the subject of gratuity is that death gratuity be paid on the same lines as the 7th CPC. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted as it is in line with the already accepted principles laid down by this Court.

IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age

107. No change has been recommended by the Commission to the retirement age of judicial officers. No opinion, therefore, is expressed on this subject by this Court.

X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of Death

108. The Commission has recommended that where a judicial officer dies while in service, the family pension and death cum retirement gratuity as per the applicable rules is payable to the spouse/dependent, of the deceased officer. The recommendation of the Commission is in terms of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This recommendation is reasonable and in furtherance of the principle of uniformity across services. Therefore, it merits acceptance by this Court.

XI. Recommendations on Assistance to Pensioners

109. The Commission has made some well-considered recommendations on assistance to be given to pensioners and family pensioners. While they may merit acceptance, it is appropriate to consider them at a later stage as they do not require any change in principles or amendments to any rules but are merely executive in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the recommendations may be considered at a later stage.

XII. Recommendations on Abolition of New Pension Scheme

110. This Court has been apprised of the recommendations made by the Commission regarding the non-applicability of the New Pension Scheme to judicial officers. However, given the objections raised to this issue by a number of States, the issue may be dealt with separately after hearing the states. Therefore, this recommendation too will be considered at a later stage.

111. The resultant position on the recommendations is tabulated below for convenience:

8. Consequential Directions

112. Ultimately, the effect of the acceptance of the recommendations of this Court is that necessary amendments must be carried out in Service Rules of the Judicial Officers across all jurisdictions. It is thus directed that the High Courts and the competent authorities, wherever applicable, bring the rules in conformity with the recommendations accepted by this Court above within a period of 3 months. Compliance affidavits be placed on record by the High Courts, the States and the Union within four months.

113. In the case of payment of arrears of pay, this Court had by Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023 already directed that all arrears of pay be cleared by 30.06.2023. In this regard, it is directed that compliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union Territories by 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited into the accounts of the concerned officers.

114. The revised rates of pension, which have been approved by this Court, shall be payable from 01.07.2023. For the payment of arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits as well, following the Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, it is directed that 25% will be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and the remaining 50% by 31.12.2023.

115. List on 17.7.2023 for further compliance on pay and pension on which date this Court will take up the recommendations on allowances.