Friday, 31 January 2025

Supreme Court: Judicial Officer Who Got ACP Benefit Also Entitled To Additional Increment On Acquiring LLM Qualification

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