Judicial Pay Commission : Supreme Court To Decide Issue Of Pay Scale & Pension Of Subordinate Judiciary On Priority Basis

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday observed that it will decide the issues of Pay Scales and pensionary/retiral benefits of the Subordinate Judiciary on a priority basis, considering the long pendency of these two issues.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli was hearing a plea filed by All India Judges Association for constitution of All India Judicial Commission to review the service conditions of the judges of the district judiciary.

"We find that it would be appropriate for us to decide the first two issues on priority basis, i.e., one relating to Pay Scales to the subordinate Judiciary and the other relating to pensionary/retiral benefits, keeping in mind the long pendency of these two issues".

The Apex Court had constituted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission in 2017 to review the pay scale, service conditions etc of the subordinate Judiciary.

The Bench today directed the State Governments and Union Territories to give their objections to the recommendation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission in this regard to the Amicus Curiae K Parameshwar so as to enable him to prepare a comprehensive report containing such objections and the Commission's observations in relating to such objections, if any.

"Please cooperate and do it in interest of Judiciary of the Country" the CJI told the State Counsels

Further, short written objections will be given by the Attorney General for India and ASG K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General would give objections on behalf of the Union of India.

The Bench has directed that all the objections must reach the Amicus Curiae and the Court preferably within a period of one week today to enable the Court to fix a date for passing appropriate Orders in the matter.

The Commission formed by the Apex Court has already submitted its report on issue of pay, pension and allowances and service conditions with reference to subordinate judiciary but is yet to submit its report regarding issue of Work Methods and Work Environment etc

Courtroom Exchange:

The Amicus in the matter, Adv K Parameshwar made the following submissions before the Court today:

• Most crucial recommendation given by the Commission is, so far as pension is concerned post new pension scheme, judges are no longer entitled to pension, they have to contribute to their own pension. The Commission has taken a view that this hits at the very root of financial independent of subordinate judiciary of this country. So what happens is , when Central Government adopted the new pension scheme for all its employees and subsequently most State Governments have also adopted it, judges are also being transitioned to new pension scheme. So what happens for all judges is, the Magistrate, an entry level subordinate judicial officer, has to contribute to his PF, for his own pension etc.
• The objections were raised during hearing of the Commission and the Commission categorically addressed them. The Supreme Court also categorically recorded n its February 2020 order that this comparison and these objections should not be taken.
• Under new system, an entry level civil judge will get 47% of what a High Court Judge gets and a District court judge will get 94.04%. There's a vertical limit that commission has kept in terms of comparison with Pay scale of High Court Judge.
• Principal objection from States is that they have compared the pay scales of judicial officers with civil services which the Supreme Court has in previous judgements held cannot be done as Judiciary is class apart. Further they've objected to matrix system, index of rationalisation etc
• What's being opposed now is that at certain levels judicial officers will be entitled to more pay than what correspondingly civil service officers are getting under the 10th Pay Commission recommendation.
  
• Commission has said that it has tried to maintain some sort of parity with civil service officers and that's what the SC has also said that there ought not be.
  
• The Fulcrum of objections is that the State says that we don't get any contribution from Centre as far as pay scale is concerned. The Centre takes the stand that under the Constitutional scheme it is for the states to bear this expense.
  
• Some Judicial officer associations have asked for more. The Commission's recommendations should be implemented, as Central Government officers got these pay revisions from 2016, next Pay Commission is due for them for 2026.
  

Senior Advocate Gourab Banerjee, assisted by Advocate Mayuri Raghuvanshi submitted that the petitioner would join with the Amicus and submitted that the issue of pay and allowances and pension may be decided.

The Bench then asked the States to submit their objections to the Amicus, and observed that orders can be passed for issues of pension and pay scale and the other issues can be considered later.

The Bench then told Attorney General KK Venugopal "Your role is limited as most financial burden is by state governments concerned. We request you as a senior officer, you know about difficulties and working conditions of Judiciary so please do send a note."

Commission's Recommendations On Pay, Pension & Allowance Be Taken Up First: Petitioner All India Judges Association

According to the petitioner Association, the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission on Pay followed by Pension and Allowances should be taken up first for the following reasons:

• The recommendation of the 7th CPC were made effective from 01/01/2016 revising the pay scales of the employees of Central Government while the judges of district judiciary are still on the pay scales which were last revised in the earlier round of litigation in 2006
  
• The pay structure recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission is based on the same principles as were applied by the earlier Commissions.
  
• Recommendations have been made after consulting all the stakeholders including the respondents and applicants in the writ petition.
  
• Pension as well allowances such as HRA, Composite Transfer Grant etc. will revise upon revision in pay based on the recommendations made by Second National Judicial Commission. Thousands of judges, and family pensioners, many of whom are more than 80 years, are eagerly waiting for revision of their pension.
  
• The objections raised by the respondents citing paucity of financial resources is not tenable in view of paragraph 7 of the order dated 28/02/2020 passed by the Supreme Court in the present writ petition. Similarly the objections based on comparison with members of Indian Administrative Services is also untenable in view of paragraph 36

Reports Of Commission:

It has been submitted on behalf of the Commission that the report has been completed few months back and sets out the following:

• The vast developments that have taken place since the First National Judicial Pay Commission gave its report and the decisions of Supreme Court on the subject.
• The observations and suggestions for consideration by High Courts on several aspects concerning court management and administration.
  
• The on-going endeavours to tackle the arrears and the practical problems encountered by the Courts, the existing deficiencies and the need for improvements in certain areas in order to provide necessary work environment are also briefly dealt with in this Report.

Representation by All India Judges Association to Second National Judicial Pay Commission dated 19th November:

The All India Judges Association had on 19th November 2020 submitted a representation to the Second National Judicial Pay Commission to take up these issues in accordance with terms of reference as set out in order dated 9th May 2017 as well as the notification dated 16th November 2017. The issues asked to be taken up included examination of work methods and work environment for the purposes of promoting efficiency judicial Administration, optimising the size of judiciary and to remove anomalies created in implementation of earlier recommendation.

The terms of reference also extend to other issues such as gender sensitisation of the judges of district judiciary, training in using technology for the purposes of research and conducting trial etc.

The representation was made requesting the Commission to initiate hearing regarding conditions of judges and for suggesting solutions to remove anomalies in the report of the First Judicial Pay Commission.

The Association pointed out the following anomalies created by implementation of recommendations of Shetty Commission which require proper rectification:

• No promotion from cadre of civil judge to District Judge. Large age difference between direct recruits and promotes disturbing harmony between two stream of appointees.

• Less opportunities to district judges to get elevation and silence on process adopted for silence.

• Issue of inter-se seniority amongst district judges

Background: The present plea was filed through Advocate Mayuri Raghuvanshi for the constitution of All India Judicial Commission to review the service conditions of the judges of the district judiciary, and court had issued notice was on 14th Sept 2015. The Court had on 09/05/2017 passed an order directing the Union of India to set up a commission headed by Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi, former judge of the Supreme Court.

The Court had directed constitution of Second National Judicial Pay Commission, with following terms of reference:

• Evolve principles which should govern structure of pay and other emoluments to judicial officers from subordinate judiciary.

• Examine present structure of emoluments and service conditions, considering existing relativities in pay structure between officers from subordinate judiciary vis-a-vis other civil servants

• Examine work methods, environment, variety of allowance available in addition to pay and remove anomalies from implementation of earlier recommendations.

• Recommend interim reliefs to all categories of judicial officers

• Recommend mechanism for setting up of a Permanent commission to review pay and service conditions of members of subordinate judiciary periodically by an Independent commission exclusively constituted.

When the Commission started its functioning, it declared that it would function in three phases. In the first phase, it will decide about interim monitory relief as other government servants are already enjoying hike in salary because of implementation of seventh Central pay commission. In the second phase decided decided to consider pay, allowances and pension and third phase the issues regarding service conditions would be considered. 

Case Title: All India Judges Association vs Union of India & Ors 

Also Read: Supreme Court Allows Three Months Extension Of Tenure Of Second National Judicial Pay Commission