It can thus be seen that in the case of State of Maharashtra v Tejwant Singh Sandhu and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2286, it was sought to be argued on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that oncethe concerned judicial officer is getting the benefit of ACP, he is not entitled to annual increment on acquiring the additional qualification of LL.M. The said contention was specifically rejected by this Court. {Para 6}
7. It was observed by this Court that the grant of ACP has nothing to do with the benefit of additional increment on acquiring the additional qualification like LL.M. This Court has further observed in the aforesaid order that there is no justification for denying the benefit of advance increment at the ACP stage. It has been observed that the object and purpose of ACP is to prevent stagnation, whereas the object and purpose of advance increment for acquiring higher qualification is to improve judicial performance. This Court, therefore, specifically rejected the recommendation by the SNJPC with regard to non extension of advance increments at the ACP stage. This Court further observed that the advance increment for acquiring higher qualification shall also be made available to the officers who have acquired their degree from distance learning programmes.
8. In that view of the matter, we find that no clarification is
necessary in this regard.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State of
Nagaland and the State of Manipur that if a judicial officer is
permitted to avail additional increment at every stage of ACP it
will result in unjust enrichment. It is further submitted that if
the judicial officer gets higher pay scale on account of
promotion/ACP Scheme he will be entitled to get benefits on
multiple occasions. We find that the contention in that regard is
without substance.
10. The SNJPC has recommended an increment @ 3% of the basic
cumulative pay. For example, if a judicial officer acquires a
higher qualification of LL.M. at the level of J.M.F.C. and his
cumulative pay is Rs.10,000/-, he will be entitled to get 9% on
account of higher qualification i.e. Rs.900/-. However, when on
account of ACP, his cumulative pay becomes Rs.15,000/-, in that
eventuality on acquiring LL.M. he will be entitled to get 9% of the
cumulative pay of Rs. 15,000/- i.e. Rs.1,350/-.
11. In that view of the matter, we find that the contention that once judicial officer gets a higher pay scale on account of ACP, he would not be entitled to get the additional increments for acquiring higher qualification, is without substance and as such is rejected.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 643/2015
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA . & ORS.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI 3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Date : 21-01-2025.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
IA Nos. 209979 and 210114 of 2024
1. The present application(s) have been filed by the
Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association contending
that though orders have been passed by this Court as far back
as on 19.05.2023 and though many of the members of the
Rajasthan Judicial Services are entitled for payment of supertime scale and/or selection grade scale, the same have not
been paid.
12
2. This Court vide its judgment/order dated 19.05.2023 had
approved the recommendation of the Second National Judicial
Pay Commission (SNJPC) with effect that the posts of District
Judges (Selection Grade) shall be increased to 35 per cent of
the cadre strength as against 25 per cent.
3. Insofar as the District Judges (Super-Time Scale) is
concerned, it was directed that the same shall be increased to
15 per cent of the cadre strength as against the existing 10
per cent and the same has to be given effect from 01.01.2020.
This Court had observed thus:
Recommendation
No.
Recommendation Order of this
Court
44.16(i) The posts of
District Judges
(Selection Grade)
shall be increased
to 35% of the
cadre strength s
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.
Accepted
4. Mr. Mukul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the High
Court of Rajasthan states that the process of grant of Super-
13
Time Scale/Selection Grade involves reviewing the Annual
Confidential Report (ACR) as well as the entire service record
of a huge number of Judicial Officers. He submits that though
the High Court is sincerely making efforts to do it
expeditiously, on account of the volume of records, it has not
been possible to complete the process so far.
5. Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae states that
vide its judgment/order dated 04.01.2024, this Court had
issued directions with regard to the constitution of a
committee in each High Court known as “Committee for Service
Conditions of the District Judiciary” (for short “the
Committee”)in each High Court.
6. We find that it will be appropriate to reproduce the
operative part of the said order :-
“82. We are of the considered view that a framework has to be set up under the
auspices of every High Court for institutionalizing the implementation of the orders of
this Court with respect to the service conditions of the district judiciary and for
implementing the recommendations of the SNJPC, as approved. Institutionalizing the
mechanism for enforcement and implementation will have several benefits which are
set out below:
(a) The implementation of the orders of this Court will be streamlined. A
Committee set up by this Court at the level of every High Court to act as a
bridge between the High Court and the State Government will facilitate
seamless implementation;
(b) Experience indicates that this Court is flooded with individual applications
and grievances concerning pay and service conditions leading to multiplicity of
proceedings and issues. This would be obviated by institutionalizing the
process at the level of each High Court; and
(c) An institutionalized entity can act as a body for recording and archiving
information and suggestions, maintaining a record of difficulties faced in
implementation and generating an institutional memory which will facilitate a
consultative framework for the next Pay Commission.
14
83. Bearing in mind the above benefits, we hereby direct the constitution of a
Committee in each High Court for overseeing the implementation of the
recommendations of the SNJPC as approved by this Court. The Committee shall be
called the ‘Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary16’. The
composition of the Committee shall consist of the following:
(i) Two Judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of which
one should be a Judge who has previously served as a member of the district
judiciary;
(ii) The Law Secretary/Legal Remembrancer;
(iii) The Registrar General of the High Court who shall serve as an ex officio
Secretary of the Committee; and
(iv) A retired judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge to be nominated by
the Chief Justice who shall act as a nodal officer for the day to day redressal of
grievances.
84. The senior most Judge nominated by the Chief Justice shall be the Chairperson of
the Committee. The Chairperson may co-opt officers of the State Government,
including the Secretaries in the Departments of Home, Finance, Health, Personnel and
Public Works, when issues concerning these departments are being deliberated upon
and implemented. The Chairperson of the Committee may at their discretion co-opt the
Accountant General to ensure due implementation of the recommendations of the
SNJPC, as approved by this Court. The Committee would be at liberty to consult with
the representatives of the Judges’ Association or, as the case may be, the Retired
Judges’ Association in the State.
85. The principal functions of the CSCDJ shall be to :
i. Oversee the proper implementation of the recommendations of the SNJPC,
including pay, pension, allowances and all allied matters as approved by this
Court by its orders;
ii. Act as a single point nodal agency for the redressal of the grievances of the
judicial officers, both serving and retired to secure the implementation of the
recommendations of the SNJPC which have been approved by this Court;
iii. Develop an institutional mechanism for recording and archiving institutional
concerns pertaining to pay, pension and service conditions of the district judiciary
which shall aid in the consultative framework for subsequent Pay Commissions
constituted for judicial officers; and
iv. Ensure that hospitals of a requisite standard with necessary facilities are
empaneled for every district in consultation with the Secretary in the Health
Department of the State Government. The Collectors of the districts shall render
all necessary assistance in ensuring that the process of empanelment is duly
streamlined. The process of empanelment shall ensure that the hospitals which are
empaneled have a demonstrable track record and possess requisite medical
facilities required for affording medical treatment of the requisite quality and
care. The Committee may also ensure the empanelment of institutions for the
purpose of carrying out medical investigations. The Committee will prescribe the
benchmarks for empanelment. The Committee shall ensure that where medical
care of the requisite standard for specified ailments is not available in the district
concerned, treatment in respect of those ailments may be availed of elsewhere in
an empaneled hospital. The Committee would be at liberty to take incidental
measures covering situations where officers who have served in the State are
residing outside the State. In such a case, the Committee may consider
15
empanelment of hospitals outside the State so as to facilitate the availing of
medical facilities.
86. Each of the CSCDJs constituted under the auspices of the High Court shall
consider the following:
(i) Formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with specified timelines for
claims and disbursal of allowances as approved by this Court, including the
payment of arrears of salary and pension to judicial officers, pensioners and family
pensioners; and
(ii) The SOP shall, inter alia, cover the following:
a) The nodal agency for disbursement of allowances, arrears and other
service and retiral benefits;
b) Laying down a simplified and effective procedure for reimbursement and
disbursement of claims;
c) Providing contact details of the nodal agency at the district or State level;
d) Publication of the SOP on the website of the High Court, together with
the details of the nodal officer; and
e) Maintenance of a database of retired Judges and family pensioners in the
district judiciary with a process for periodical updating, at least on a
quarterly basis“
7. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that, had the said
recommendation been followed in letter and spirit by the
various High Courts, the delay in consideration of the
grievances of the judicial officers on account of nonimplementation of the directions issued by this Court would
not have arisen.
8. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that in many High
Courts/States the said Committee has not been constituted. He
further submits that in various High Courts/States though this
Committee has been constituted, the same is not meeting
regularly. It is further submitted that in some of the High
Courts/States even the Nodal Officers, who can look after the
day-to-day individual grievances of the judicial officers,
have not been appointed.
16
9. We find that if the implementation of the directions
issued by this Court vide judgment/order dated 04.01.2024 are
complied with in letter and spirit, many of the issues would
get resolved at the Committee level.
10 The said judgment/order takes care of various aspects,
including framing of the timelines for payment and disbursal
of the claims and allowances as approved by this Court.
11. We, therefore, request all the High Courts/States to
implement the aforesaid directions as are found in
judgment/order dated 04.01.2024 reproduced hereinabove.
12. If the Committee has not been constituted by any of the
High Courts/States so far, the same shall be constituted
within a period of four weeks from today.
13. The Nodal Officer, who is required to be a retired
District Judge and who is required to work for the day-to-day
redressal of the grievances shall also be appointed within a
period of four weeks from today.
14. It is further directed that the High Courts shall provide
an office place to such a Nodal Officer in the premises of the
High Court(s) wherein the Judicial Officer can meet such a
Nodal Officer for submitting their grievances.
15. It is further directed that since the said Nodal Officer
would be working almost on a regular basis, he shall be paid a
monthly remuneration of Rs.75,000/-.
17
16. Needless to state that the said remuneration shall be in
addition to the pension that is being paid to such Judicial
Officers.
17. We further direct that wherever any High Court has more
than one permanent Benches, in addition to the principal seat,
the Nodal Officer shall also receive and hear grievances of
the Judicial Officers residing within the territorial
jurisdiction of those Benches and place the same before the
Committee.
18. The Nodal Officer concerned shall also be entitled for
the TA/DA for travelling to the Benches, which shall be paid
by the State Governments concerned.
19. The said Committee shall be chaired by a Senior Judge of
the High Court who is requested to ensure that the Committee
meets at regular intervals of not more than three months.
20. Needless to state that the decision of the Committee on
the individual grievances of the Judicial Officers, shall be
implemented by the respective State Governments within a
period of three months from the date of the recommendation of
the said Committee.
21. Since the grievances of the Judicial Officers are not
perennial in nature, once all the grievances with regard to
implementation are addressed, the Committee would stop
functioning so also the Nodal Officers.
18
22. If any of the Judicial Officers has any grievance with
regard to the decision of the Committee or non-implementation
of the decision of the Committee, such Judicial Officer would
be entitled to approach the High Court directly either for
redressal of his grievance or for implementation of decision
of the Committee.
23. It is also noticed that in some of the High Courts, some
of the judges concerned, do not enter the ACRs of the Judicial
Officers.
24. In some of the High Courts, the Appellate Committee,
which normally consists of the Judges of the High Court, also
sit for years on the representations made by the Judicial
Officers for expunction, modification and verification of the
ACRs. On account of delay in such procedure, the Judicial
Officers are deprived of their due consideration for
promotional avenues.
25. We request the Hon’ble Chief Justices/Acting Chief
Justices of all the High Courts to impress upon the judges
concerned to promptly record the ACRs of the Judicial Officers
and also to the Appellate Committees to consider the
representations of the Judicial Officers with regard to ACRs
at the earliest so that they are not deprived of being
considered for promotions.
26. It is informed that some of the High Courts have also not
19
framed the rules to give effect to the recommendation No.
44.16 (i) of order dated 19.05.2023 in WP (C) 643/2015.
27. We, therefore, request such of the High Courts as well as
the State Governments who have not framed Rules in conformity
with the directions issued by this Court, to frame the Rules
within a period of three months from today.
28. We clarify that the aforesaid directions are issued by
this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142
of the Constitution of India and all the State Governments as
well as the High Courts would be bound to comply with the
same.
29. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall forthwith
forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretaries of all
the States so also the Registrar Generals of the High Courts
for implementation of the aforesaid directions.
30. In the above terms, the applications are disposed of.
IA Nos. 247887 and 247888 of 2024
1. The application for impleadment (IA No. 247887 of 2024)
is allowed.
2. The present application (IA Nos. 247888 of 2024) is filed
by the applicants who have worked as Special Judicial
Magistrates of the Second Class/Special Metropolitan
Magistrates in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Special Judicial Magistrates who are working in some
20
of the States and discharging their functions under Section 13
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Petty Offence Trial
(Trial by Special Judicial Magistrates) Rules, 1996, were
being paid Rs.6,000/- per month which was subsequently
increased to Rs.9,000/- per month.
4. This Court vide its order dated 19.05.2023, considered
the issue and directed thus:-
Recommendation No. Recommendation Order of this Court
44.19 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
5. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the recommendations
of the SNJPC to pay the minimum remuneration of Rs.30,000/-
per month in addition to the conveyance allowance of Rs.
5,000/- per month with effect from 01.04.2019 and to suitably
revise the same in every five years, was accepted with
modification by this Court i.e. this Court has enhanced the
amount of minimum remuneration to Rs.45,000/- per month in
addition to the conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that in addition to
the State of Andhra Pradesh various other High Courts and
21
State Governments are misconstruing the directions issued by
this Court.
7. It is stated that the State of Andhra Pradesh rightly
construing the orders passed by this Court has revised the
remuneration with effect from 01.04.2019. However, after
considering the representation made by some of the applicants
vide its communication dated 30.09.2024, the Registrar General
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, has observed that there
was no direction of this Court to make the payment with
retrospective effect from 01.04.2019.
8. We are at pains to say that the observations of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh communicated through its Registrar
General vide communication dated 30.09.2024 are on a total
misconstruction of the directions issued by this Court vide
its order dated 19.05.2023, referred to hereinabove.
9. The recommendations of the SNJPC was two-fold. Firstly,
the Special Judicial Magistrates were to get a minimum
remuneration of Rs. 30,000/- per month in addition to
conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The second part
was that it has to be paid with effect from 01.04.2019.
10. This Court accepted the recommendation and provided for
enhancement of the minimum remuneration from Rs. 30,000/- to
Rs. 45,000/- per month in addition to conveyance allowance of
Rs.5,000/- per month. The other part of the recommendation
22
that it has to be paid with effect from 01.04.2019, had
already been accepted.
11. We find that rather than rejecting the representation,
the least the High Court of Andhra Pradesh could have done was
to seek clarification from this Court.
12. Mr. G.N. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the State
of Andhra Pradeh states that the State of Andhra Pradesh has
not paid the arrears only on account of the order passed by
the High Court.
13. We, therefore, direct the State of Andhra Pradesh to pay
the arrears of the remuneration with effect from 01.04.2019
till the date from which the enhanced amount of Rs. 45,000/-
was paid to them. The said arrears shall be cleared within a
period of three months from today.
14. We hope that if any of the High Courts or the State
Governments have any doubt with regard to the payment of
arrears from 01.04.2019 till the date on which the actual
payment of Rs.45,000/- in addition to the conveyance allowance
of Rs. 5,000/- per month is made to the Special Judicial
Magistrates, the aforesaid direction would clarify the
position and the same can be implemented in the aforesaid
terms.
15. Needless to state that this Court had also accepted the
recommendation of SNJPC that this remuneration will be
23
suitably revised every five years.
16. In view of the above, this application is disposed of.
IA Nos. 247784, 247785, 247889 of 2024
In view of the order passed in I.A. No. 247887 of 2024,
these applications are disposed of on the same terms.
Contempt Petition (C) No. 485 of 2024
1. The grievance of the present petitioner is that the
petitioner is being paid a meagre pension of Rs. 7,160/- per
month which is a total breach of the order passed by this
Court dated 19.05.2023.
2. We are informed that the High Court of Telangana has
already constituted the Committee for Service Conditions of
District Judiciary (for short, the Committee).
3. We, therefore, find it appropriate that the Committee of
the High Court of Telangana shall at first instance consider
the grievance of the petitioner.
4. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall forward a
digital copy of the present contempt petition as well as this
order to the Registrar General of the High Court who shall
place the same before the Committee. The Committee is
requested to address the issue immediately.
5. The Registrar General of the High Court shall communicate
the outcome of the proceedings of the committee to this Court
24
within a period of eight weeks from today.
I.A. Nos. 4124 and 4137 of 2024
1. Since the applicant’s case is an individual case, it will
be appropriate that the applicant approaches the High Court of
Kerala where he may request the High Court to consider his
grievance.
2. Accordingly, these applications are permitted to be
withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court of Kerala
which shall consider the claim of the applicant in accordance
with law.
I.A. NOS.275406/2024 & 184227/2024
1. These applications are filed by the State of Nagaland and the
State of Manipur. Certain clarifications are sought on the
following three aspects:-
“a) Clarify the admissibility/enforcement of the risk
allowance when Civil Officers of the State are not given
the risk allowance;
b) Clarify as to whether a Judicial Officer is
entitled to the Higher Qualification Allowance at every
ACP stage;
c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble
Court may consider proper.”
25
2. The first issue raised is as to whether the judicial officers
would be entitled to admissibility/enforcement of the risk
allowance when the civil officers of the States are not being given
the risk allowance.
3. We find that it would be appropriate for the respective
Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary of
Gauhati High Court (the State of Nagaland) and of Manipur High
Court (the State of Manipur) to take a call on the said issue.
Needless to state that before considering the said issue, the
Committee shall give hearing to the representatives of the judicial
officers as well as the officials of State of Nagaland and State of
Manipur. We clarify that we are not expressing any opinion on the
said issue either way.
4. Insofar as the second issue raised is concerned, a
clarification is sought, as to whether a judicial officer is
entitled to the higher qualification allowance at every Assured
Career Progression (ACP) stage.
5. We find that the said issue is no more res integra. This
Court in its judgment/order dated 04.01.2024 has observed thus:-
“42. The recommendation made by the SNJPC that the benefit of
advance increment shall not be extended at the ACP stage
appears to be covered by the order of this Court dated 30
September 2022 in State of Maharashtra v Tejwant Singh Sandhu
where this Court held:
“The short question which is posed for consideration of
this Court is whether the judicial officers who have
acquired the the degree of LL.M. are entitled to the
benefit of an additional increment? It is the case on
behalf of the State that once the concerned Judicial
Officer is getting the benefit of ACP, is not entitled
to the additional increment on acquiring the additional
qualification of LL.M. The aforesaid cannot be accepted.
The grant of ACP has nothing to do with the benefit of
additional increment on acquiring the additional
qualification like LL.M. Even otherwise, the issue is
squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Bharat
Kumar Shantilal Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
(2014) 15 SCC 305. In view of the above, there is no
substance in the present Special Leave Petition and the
same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.”
43. There is no justification for denying the benefit of
advance increments at the ACP stage. The object and purpose
of ACP is to prevent stagnation. On the other hand, the
object and purpose of advance increments for acquiring higher
qualifications is to improve judicial performance. Hence, the
restrictive condition imposed by the SNJPC in regard to nonextension of advance increments at the ACP stage is not
accepted. The advance increments for acquiring higher
qualifications shall also be made available to officers who
have acquired their degrees through distance learning
programmes.”
6. It can thus be seen that in the case of State of Maharashtra v
Tejwant Singh Sandhu and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2286, it was sought to be argued on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that oncethe concerned judicial officer is getting the benefit of ACP, he is
not entitled to annual increment on acquiring the additional
qualification of LL.M. The said contention was specifically
rejected by this Court.
7. It was observed by this Court that the grant of ACP has
nothing to do with the benefit of additional increment on acquiring
the additional qualification like LL.M. This Court has further
observed in the aforesaid order that there is no justification for
denying the benefit of advance increment at the ACP stage. It has
been observed that the object and purpose of ACP is to prevent
stagnation, whereas the object and purpose of advance increment for
acquiring higher qualification is to improve judicial performance.
This Court, therefore, specifically rejected the recommendation by
the SNJPC with regard to non extension of advance increments at the
ACP stage. This Court further observed that the advance increment
for acquiring higher qualification shall also be made available to
the officers who have acquired their degree from distance learning
programmes.
8. In that view of the matter, we find that no clarification is
necessary in this regard.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State of
Nagaland and the State of Manipur that if a judicial officer is
permitted to avail additional increment at every stage of ACP it
will result in unjust enrichment. It is further submitted that if
the judicial officer gets higher pay scale on account of
promotion/ACP Scheme he will be entitled to get benefits on
multiple occasions. We find that the contention in that regard is
without substance.
10. The SNJPC has recommended an increment @ 3% of the basic
cumulative pay. For example, if a judicial officer acquires a
higher qualification of LL.M. at the level of J.M.F.C. and his
cumulative pay is Rs.10,000/-, he will be entitled to get 9% on
account of higher qualification i.e. Rs.900/-. However, when on
account of ACP, his cumulative pay becomes Rs.15,000/-, in that
eventuality on acquiring LL.M. he will be entitled to get 9% of the
cumulative pay of Rs. 15,000/- i.e. Rs.1,350/-.
11. In that view of the matter, we find that the contention that
once judicial officer gets a higher pay scale on account of ACP, he
would not be entitled to get the additional increments for
acquiring higher qualification, is without substance and as such is
rejected.
12. These applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment