- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Judicial Officers' Inability To...
Judicial Officers' Inability To Meet Targets During Initial Years Need Not Be Viewed Seriously : Supreme Court Relaxes ACP Norms For Civil Judges( Jr Div)
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
26 May 2023 3:33 AM GMT
"A Civil Judge (Jr Div) is normally in the process of learning the work in his first two years"
The inability of a judicial officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of the career need not be viewed seriously.The Supreme Court made this significant observation while accepting the suggestion made by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission for relaxing the norms for grant of 1st Assured Career Progression...
The inability of a judicial officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of the career need not be viewed seriously.
The Supreme Court made this significant observation while accepting the suggestion made by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission for relaxing the norms for grant of 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) for Civil Judges (Junior Division). At present, a Civil Judge (Jr Div) would be entitled to the first ACP only after completing 5 years of service.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice V Ramasubramanian, while considering the All India Judges Association case in relation to the service conditions of judicial officers, observed :
"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".
The bench noted thatt Civil Judge(Jr Division) has only two promotional avenues- Civil Judge (Senior Division) and District Judge. Also, the option of Limited Competitive Examination for promotion to District Judge post is available only to Civil Judge (Senior Division). In this background, the Court said, "Without any promotional avenues, the stagnation in the service causes loss of morale to judicial officers which has a direct bearing on their independence".
As regards the relaxed norms which could apply for the 1st ACP, 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 1st ACP.
Accepting this suggestion, the Court 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.
"Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) shall not be based on the application of the existing norm of seniority-cum-merit. There shall be relaxed norms for assessing the performance in terms of output. The scrutiny shall be for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there is anything positively adverse such as consistently poor/unsatisfactory performance or adverse report of serious nature leading to the inference that the Officer is unfit to have the benefit of ACP", this was the suggestion accepted by the Court. The Court said that the High Courts should adopt revised norms in this regard.
Delay in grant of ACP
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.
The recommendations of the Commission are reasonable, opined the Court. "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", the Court said in its order.
The Court also accepted various other suggestions made by the SNJPC and directed the High Courts to amend their service rules to implement them.
Other recommendations which were accepted by the Court.
States/High Courts shall take immediate steps to re-designate the officers in conformity with the All India pattern as recommended by FNJPC i.e. those who have not done it so far. The recommendation was to designate posts as Civil Judge (Junior Division), Civil Judge (Senior Division) and District Judge uniformly across the country.
The new pay structure shall be as per the 'Pay Accepted Matrix' pattern on the model of VII CPC as against the 'Master Pay Scale' pattern so as to remove the anomalies and to rationalize the pay structure and to ensure due benefit to the judicial officers of all cadres within the framework of established principles.
The categorization of the Judicial officers shall be based on their status in the functional hierarchy reflected in horizontal range in Table-I below para 13.1 of the Report.
The initial pay for each rank of officer is about Accepted 2.81 times the existing entry pay of each rank except J-6 and J-7, which is in the same proportion of increase as that of the High Court Judge. Accordingly, the first row in the horizontal range (J-1 to J-7) denotes the entry pay for fresh recruits/appointees in that level.
The new Mean Pay percentage vis-a-vis the salary of High Court Judge in relation to each cadre and grade as per p. 182 of the Report.
The annual increment shall be @3% Accepted cumulative, meaning thereby that the increment @3% has to be calculated on the previous years basic pay instead of fixed amount increments recommended by FNJPC and JPC.
In the Pay Matrix pattern, there shall be now 37 Accepted stages instead of 44.
The fitment/migration of the existing officers shall be as reflected in Table II at para 13.3, read with p.73- Accepted to be read with Corrigendum dated March 2021 submitted by the SNJPC.
The procedure for migration/fitment of the serving Judicial officers and also the procedure for fixation of pay on promotion shall be as explained in paras 13.5 and 13.8- Accepted – to be read with Corrigendum dated March 2021 submitted by the SNJPC.
As regards the date of accrual of increment, there shall be no change in the existing system which is being followed in various states/UTs i.e. the increment shall be once in a year as per the date of appointment or promotion or financial upgradation.
The retiring Judicial officers shall have the benefit of increment becoming due the next day following their retirement. That increment shall be for the purposes of pension only and shall be subject to vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.
The pay of the judicial officers of all ranks/grades in the new pay matrix/pay structure shall be effective from 01.01.2016.
Arrears of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 shall be paid during the calendar year 2020, after adjusting the interim relief already paid under the Interim Report dated 09.03.2018.
The present practice of sanction of DA at the rates prescribed by Central Government from time to time shall continue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court may issue directions that the benefit of revised DA in conformity with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time shall be paid to the Judicial officers without delay, and in any case, not later than 3 months from the date of issuance of the order by the Central Government. The benefit of revised rates of DA shall accrue from the effective date as specified in the Order issued by Central Government in this behalf.
Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) shall not be based on the application of the existing norm of seniority-cum-merit. There shall be relaxed norms for assessing the performance in terms of output. The scrutiny shall be for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there is anything positively adverse such as consistently poor/unsatisfactory performance or adverse report of serious nature leading to the inference that the Officer is unfit to have the benefit of ACP (Accepted, the revised norms be developed by the High Courts in accordance with this judgment)
If for any reason, delay in grant of ACP goes beyond one year, one additional increment for every year delay shall be granted subject to adjustment while drawing the arrears on grant of ACP.
The posts of District Judges (Selection Grade) shall be increased to 35% of the cadre strength as against the existing 25%, and the District Judges (Super Time Scale) shall be increased to 15% of the cadre strength as against the existing 10%. It will be effective from 01.01.2020.
The Pay Revision benefit which is already available to the Presiding Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (outside the regular cadre of subordinate judiciary) in view of the recommendation of JPC, shall be extended to them also simultaneously with Judicial Officers of regular cadre without administrative delays.
The Judges of the Family Courts in Maharashtra who belong to a separate cadre have to be extended the benefit of pay of District Judge (Selection Grade) and District Judge (Super Time Scale) in the same ratio as prescribed for regular District Judges. The High Court to propose the minimum age for grant of Selection Grade, if considered necessary. The Principal Judge Family Court (ex-cadre) to be allotted quarters preferentially, in General Pool Accommodation.
Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Class)/Special Metropolitan Magistrates (dealing with petty criminal cases) shall get minimum remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month in addition to conveyance allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and to be suitably revised every five years(Accepted with modification of Rs. 45,000 per month and Rs. 5,000/- per month for conveyance).
RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITY AND AGE OF RETIREMENT ETC
No change in pension for those retiring after 01.01.2016- the pension/family pension shall be @50% / 30% of the last drawn pay at the time of retirement.
Revised pension of retired judicial officers would be 50% of last drawn pay.
Formulations as given in Report to apply for pension revision: (i) Multiplier factor of 2.81 to be applicable for pension; or (ii) Pensioners to be fitted appropriately in the fitment table (Table II, para 13.3, Ch. II, Vol. I, p. 73) whichever is higher (Accepted – read with the Corrigendum dated March, 2021)
Judicial officers who retired prior to 01.01.2016 to be placed notionally at the corresponding stage(Accepted – read with the Corrigendum dated March, 2021).
For judicial Officers who retired prior to 01.01.1996, if no consequential re- fixation has been done by the Government concerned based on the directives of this Hon’ble Court, the said benefit shall be extended to them first without further delay (Accepted – directed to be implemented immediately).
The benefits of number of years of practice at bar subject to maximum of weightage of ten years will be given to direct recruits of HJS who retired prior to 01.01.2016.
For family pensioners, no change is suggested in the existing percentage of family pension, that is, it shall be @30% of last drawn pay at the time of retirement of the Judicial officer.
Family Pension @30% shall be paid to eligible family member(s) as given in Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 at par with the spouse, after the death of the spouse.
The quantum of family pension shall be worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out.
Income limit, if any prescribed by any State in relation to dependent family members (other than the spouse) for being eligible to get family pension shall be not less than Rs.30,000/- per month (rupees thirty thousand per month) - Accepted, states at liberty to adopt more beneficial position.
Additional quantum of family pension on completion of age of and at the rates specified as per Table in p.49, Vol. II Part-I.
This benefit of additional pension shall be available to all eligible pensioners/family pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
No recovery shall be effected from those who have availed the benefit of additional pension on completion of age of 65 or 70 years as per the extant orders of the some of the State Governments.
The State Governments may also choose to continue to extend the prevailing benefits upto the age of 75 years to the retired Judicial officers as well.
Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Rule 50(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. These recommendations shall be effective from 01.01.2016.
To the officers who have retired after 01.01.2016 and paid retirement gratuity as per pre-revised pay and the maximum limit at that time, the differential gratuity payable on account of revision of pay shall be paid subject to the revised maximum limit.
The death gratuity shall be paid as per table in p.52, Vol. II on the basis of length in service.
No change in retirement age of 60 years recommended.
The benefit of family pension as per Rule 54(3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, as amended vide notification dated 19.09.2019 shall be extended to the family members.
The other benefits such as one time lumpsum grant, compassionate appointment, permission to stay in official quarters etc. already in force in the States shall continue to apply, in addition to death gratuity.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452
