ABCDEFGH33of the last drawn pay. Therefore v. UNION OF INDIA ABCDEFGH35 The Commission has recommended that where a judicialofficer

(c) To examine the work methods and work environment asalso the variety of allowance and benefits in kind that areavailable to judicial officers in addition to pay and to suggestrationalisation and simplification thereof with a view topromoting efficiency in judicial administration, optimising thesize of judiciary, etc. and to remove anomalies created inimplementation of earlier recommendations.5 All India Judges Association. v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 314.6 Notified vide Notification No. 19018/01/2017 dated 16.11.2017 by the Departmentof Justice. ABCDEFGH44SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.(d) To consider and recommend such interim relief as itconsiders just and proper to all categories of judicial officersof all the States/Union Territories. The interim relief, ifrecommended, shall have to be fully adjusted against andincluded in the package which may become admissible to thejudicial officers on the final recommendations of the Commission.

(e) To recommend the mechanism for setting up of a permanentmechanism to review the pay and service conditions ofmembers of subordinate judiciary periodically by anindependent commission exclusively constituted for thepurpose and the composition of such commission shouldreflect adequate representation on behalf of the judiciary.

The fourth principle is ABCDEFGH48SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.that the access to an independent judiciary enforces fundamental rightsguaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The fifth principle is thatthe essential function of all judicial officers in the District Judiciary andjudges of the High Court and this Court is essentially the same.I.Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions22. India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of the Constitution. A unified judiciary necessarily entails that the serviceconditions of judges of one state are equivalent to similar posts of judgesof other states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to ensurethat the judicial system is uniform, effective and efficient in its functioning. Efficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacityto be provided with the right incentives and promotion opportunities tomaintain the high level of functioning of the judiciary.23.

This Court in All India Judges Association (II)8 has notedthe position of law and observed that uniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessaryconsequences. It was held:

14. … Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unifiedinstitution judicially though not administratively. Henceuniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform serviceconditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. Thefurther directions given, therefore, should not be looked uponas an encroachment on the powers of the executive and thelegislature to determine the service conditions of the judiciary. They are directions to perform the long overdue obligatoryduties.

II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with PoliticalExecutive24. Separation of powers demands that the officers of the Judiciary be treated separately and distinct from the staff of the legislativeand executive wings.

It must be remembered the judges are not employeesof the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicialpower. In that sense, they are only comparable to members of thelegislature and ministers in the executive. Parity, thus, cannot be claimedbetween staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with officers8All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 14. ABCDEFGH49ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]of the judicial wing. This Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Unionof India,9 explained the distinction and held that those who exercisethe State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist inimplementing their decisions. Thus, there cannot be any objection thatjudicial officers receive pay which is not at par with executive staff.

Inthis context, it may also be remembered that Article 50 of the Constitutiondirects the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the Executive.25. This distinction is also important because judicial independencefrom the executive and the legislature requires the judiciary to have asay in matters of their finances. This Court has previously noted thattheoretically, allowing the Executive to decide the pay of the judiciarymay lead to unintended consequences.10 Therefore, to secure trueindependence of the judiciary, this Court has recognized that the pay ofjudicial officers is separate and distinct from the pay of staff of otherwings of the State. This, it may be noted, is nothing but an articulation ofthe doctrine of inherent powers. This doctrine mandates that the judiciarymust possess the inherent power to “compel payment of those sumsof money which are reasonable and necessary to carry out itsmandated responsibilities, and its powers and duties to administerjustice.” 11 This doctrine is only the logical conclusion of separation ofpowers and ensures that the independence of the judiciary is secured.26.

The submission of the States that there is a paucity of financialresources must be examined from this aspect of the matter. The Statesand the Union have repeatedly stated that the burden on the financialresources of the States/Union due to the Report of the SNJPC issignificant and therefore the Report cannot be implemented. Withoutthe doctrine of inherent powers, any de-funding of the Judiciary cannotbe repelled.9All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 7.10In All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 10:

Itwould be against the spirit of the Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in thatbehalf, for theoretically it would not be impossible for the executive or the legislature toturn and twist the tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a consequencewould be against one of the seminal mandates of the Constitution, namely, to maintainthe independence of the judiciary.

11Commonwealth ex rel Carroll vs.

Tate, 274 A.2d. 193. Approved by this Court in BrijMohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 at para 110 – 111. ABCDEFGH50SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.27. Apart from this, Judicial Officers have been working withouta pay revision for nearly 15 years. A pay revision has been recommendedin accordance with the law laid down by this Court and a report submittedby a Judicial Pay Commission after considering this very objection. ThisCourt has also examined this issue of paucity of financial resources onat least three occasions in these very proceedings. In the Order dated28.02.2020, which took cognizance of the Report of the SNJPC, this Court stated that it hoped that

the same objections, which have beenrejected by this Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, will not be re-agitated. The Court in theaforesaid judgment observed that compared to the other plan andnon-plan expenditures, the financial burden caused on account ofthe directions given therein are negligible.

12 However, the Statesand 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 PayCommission, which was implemented from 01.01.2016, judicial officershave not received any similar benefit. Thus, the Court held that “there isa need to at least implement the revised pay structure immediatelyso as to alleviate the sufferings of the judicial officers.” 13 The Court, after considering the objections of the Union and the State rejected thesame and accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended bythe SNJPC. Aggrieved by the acceptance of the Report, the Union fileda review petition before this Court. This Court by Order dated 05.04.2023dismissed the review petitions and found that the financial implicationscannot be considered as excessive in view of the information given bythe SNJPC.14 Still, the States and the Union have raised this objectionafter its express rejection twice over.

The rejection of their objection isalso reiterated. Judicial Officers cannot be left in the lurch for prolongedperiods of time without a revision of pay on an alleged paucity of financialresources.29. This Court in its Review Order dated 05.04.2023 has explainedthis position in the following words: “4. In view of the above discussion, the issue is whether thereis any compelling need to reduce the quantum of increase12 Order dated 28.02.2020 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 7.13 Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 13.14 Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19. ABCDEFGH51ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]proposed by applying a lower multiplier so as to marginallyreduce the gap between entry level IAS officers (in Juniorand Senior time scales) and Judicial Officers at the first twolevels (Civil Judge, Junior and Senior Divisions).

Such anexercise is not warranted for more than one reason. Firstly, the initial starting pay must be such as to offer an incentiveto talented youngsters to join judicial service. Secondly, theapplication of a multiplier/ factor less than 2.81 would resultin a deviation from the principle adopted by SNJPC that theextent of increase of pay of judicial officers must becommensurate with the increase in the pay of High Courtjudges. This principle has been accepted by this Court byapproving the recommendations of the SNJPC. Therefore, thereis no valid reason to depart from the principle applied byJPC that the pay of judicial officers should be higher whencompared to All India Service Officers of the correspondingrank. This principle has been approved by this Court in AIJA(2002) Thirdly, in All India Judges Association (II) v. Unionof India this court rejected the comparison of serviceconditions of the judiciary with that of the administrativeexecutive: “7.

It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated inthe judgment under review while dealing with the samecontentions raised there. We cannot however, help observingthat the failure to realize the distinction between the judicialservice and the other services is at the bottom of the hostilitydisplayed by the review petitioners to the directions given inthe judgment. The judicial service is not service in the senseof ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As membersof the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power ofthe State. They are holders of public offices in the same wayas the members of the council of ministers and the membersof the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such asours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitutethe three pillars of the State, what is intended to be conveyedis that the three essential functions of the State are entrustedto the three organs of the State and each one of them in turnrepresents the authority of the State.

However, those whoexercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators ABCDEFGH52SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.and the Judges, and not the members of their staff whoimplement or assist in implementing their decisions. Thecouncil of ministers or the political executive is different fromthe secretarial staff or the administrative executive whichcarries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly, the Legislators are different from the legislative staff. So alsothe Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between thepolitical executive, the Legislators and the Judges and notbetween the Judges and the administrative executive. In somedemocracies like the USA, members of some State judiciariesare elected as much as the members of the legislature and theheads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they maybe, represent the State and its authority unlike theadministrative executive or the members of the other services.

The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placedon a par with the members of the judiciary, eitherconstitutionally or functionally.”” III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of the Basic Structure30. This Court has repeatedly held that the independence of thejudiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.15 However, the pronouncements of the Court have been in the context of the HighCourt and the Supreme Court and not in the context of the DistrictJudiciary. The District Judiciary performs an important role in upholdingthe rule of law. As noted in the Review Order dated 05.04.2023:“15. The District Courts and courts forming a part of the districtjudiciary discharge a prominent role in preserving the rule oflaw. Public confidence in the judicial system sustains thecredibility of the judiciary. The district judiciary has asignificant role in generating and fostering public confidence.

The standards of ethics and professionalism expected of judgesare more rigorous than those applied to other services/professions. Ensuring adequate emoluments, pension andproper working conditions for the members of the district15 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; Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Inre, (1998) 7 SCC 739; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India,(2016) 5 SCC 1. ABCDEFGH53ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]judiciary has an important bearing on the efficiency ofjudicial administration and the effective discharge of theunique role assigned to the judiciary.” 31. The independence of the District Judiciary must also be equallya part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Without impartial andindependent judges in the District Judiciary, Justice, a preambular goal16would remain illusory.

The District Judiciary is, in most cases, also the Court which is most accessible to the litigant. The Amicus Curiaesubmitted that on a single day, the District Judiciary handled nearly 11.3lakh cases. It was seen that during the period of the pandemic as well, the District Judiciary was yet efficient and undertook its functions toensure that justice is delivered in a timely manner. It is thus important torecognize that the District Judiciary is a vital part of the independentjudicial system, which is, in turn, part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice EnsuresImplementation of Part III of the Constitution32. Any interpretation of Part III of the Constitution would alsorequire that effective and speedy disposal of cases be done by anindependent District Judiciary. This Court has repeatedly held that theright 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: “31. If “life” implies not only life in the physical sense but abundle of rights that makes life worth living, there is no juristicor other basis for holding that denial of “access to justice” will not affect the quality of human life so as to take accessto justice out of the purview of right to life guaranteedunder Article 21. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holdingthat access to justice is indeed a facet of right to lifeguaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. We need onlyadd that access to justice may as well be the facet of the right16 The Preamble guarantees that “JUSTICE, social, economic and political;” shall besecured to all the citizens of India.17 See: Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81,Commissioner of Police Delhi v.

Registrar, Delhi High Court [(1996) 6 SCC 323, para16]; Mohd. Hussain v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2012) 9 SCC 408, para 1. ABCDEFGH54SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution whichguarantees equality before law and equal protection of lawsto not only citizens but non-citizens also…… Absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacyof such mechanism, needless to say, is bound to prevent thoselooking for enforcement of their right to equality before lawsand equal protection of the laws from seeking redress andthereby negate the guarantee of equality before laws orequal protection of laws and reduce it to a mere teasingillusion.” 33. The right of fair trial and access to justice, as contemplated bythis Court, is not limited to the physical access to a Court. The right mustalso include all the necessary prerequisites of a Court, i.e., theinfrastructure, and an unbiased, impartial, and independent judge.

At thecost of repetition, for most litigants in this country, as the onlyphysicallyaccessible institution for accessing justice is the DistrictJudiciary, the independence of district judiciary assumes even greatersignificance.34. One may go to the extent to state that the rights of “access tojustice” and “fair trial” cannot be exercised by an individual without anindependent judiciary. Further, without fair and speedy trial, the remainingrights, including fundamental and constitutional rights will not be enforcedin a manner known to law. If these instrumental rights themselves arehindered, then all other rights within the Constitution would not beenforceable. V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District Judiciaryand Higher Judiciary35. The essential function of the District Judiciary, as also thefunction of the High Courts and this Court is to administer justiceimpartially and independently.

This Court in its Review Order observed:

14. Fourthly, the argument that an uniform IoR would equatethe district courts with constitutional courts is erroneous. Auniform multiplier is used for a uniform increment in pay andnot for the purpose of uniform pay in itself. All Judges acrossthe hierarchy of courts discharge the same essential functionof adjudicating disputes impartially and independently. Thus, ABCDEFGH55ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]it would not be appropriate to apply graded IoR when SNJPChas chosen to uniformly apply the multiplier.

36. Together, the Courts constitute the unified judicial systemperforming for the core and essential function of administering justice. To be truly unified both in form and in substance, there must be integrationin terms of pay, pension and other service conditions between the DistrictJudiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

To this end, under Article 125 and 221 of the Constitution, the salaries etc. payable to thejudges of the High Court and the Supreme Court are fixed by law asmade by Parliament. The salaries for judges of the High Court are thesame across the country by virtue of the High Court Judges (Salariesand Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.37. Given that in the hierarchy of the unified judicial system aJudge of the High Court is placed above a District Judge, it follows thata District Judge cannot have more pay more than a High Court judge. Therefore, the maximum ceiling of pay that a District Judge may earn isthe salary of a High Court judge which is fixed under the aforementionedstatute. Once the salary of the District Judge is pegged against the HighCourt judge, it thus follows that any increase in the salary of the judgesof the High Court must reflect in the same proportion to the judges inthe District Judiciary.

In the Review Order, this Court observed:

16. The legitimacy of the principle that the increase of payof the judicial officers must be commensurate with thequantum of increase in the pay of High Court judges hasbeen raised previously and stands judicially settled. Therefore, any objection to the IoR on the ground that it has to be lowerthan that adopted for increase in the pay of the judges of the High Court is without cogent basis.

38. Having considered the constitutional foundations on the basisof which the recommendations of the SNJPC are to be considered, wewill now proceed to examine the recommendations with respect to pay, pension, gratuity etc.5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY39. We will first deal with the recommendation of SNJPC on paystructure. A summary of the relevant recommendations ofSNJPC onpay are tabulated hereinbelow: ABCDEFGH56SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.Recommendation No.

Recommendation 44.1 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. 44.2 The new pay structure shall be as per the ‘Pay 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 44.3 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 44.4, 44.5 The initial pay for each rank of officer is about 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.

44.6 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 44.7 The annual increment shall be @3% 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. 44.8 In the Pay Matrix pattern, there shall be now 37 stages instead of 44 44.9 The fitment/migration of the existing officers shall be as reflected in Table II at para 13.3, p.73 44.10 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. 44.11(i) 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.

44.11(ii) 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/-. ABCDEFGH57ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]44.12 The pay of the judicial officers of all ranks/grades in the new pay matrix/pay structure shall be effective from 01.01.2016 44.13 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. 44.14 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. 44.15(i) 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. 44.15(ii) 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. 44.16(i) 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 44.16(ii) The upgradation benefit shall be given to the District Judges by applying the principle of seniority-cum-merit instead of meritcum-seniority.

44.16(iii) If the post remains or continues for three years it shall form part of cadre strength. 44.17 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. ABCDEFGH58SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.44.18 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.

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. 5.1 ORDERS OF THIS COURT ON SNJPCRECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY40. This Court has subsequently passed three detailed orders dealingwith 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 dated18.01.2023 and the final one is Order dated 05.04.2023. In the first Order, this Court accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended bySNJPC. By Order dated 18.01.2023, this Court granted additional timeto some States to comply with the Order dated 27.07.2022. Thereafter, some States and the Union filed review petitions against the Order dated27.07.2022 passed by this Court.

This Court dismissed the reviews on05.04.2023.19 Thus, most of the recommendations of the SNJPC on thepay structure have become final.5.2 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ONPAY41. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pay areconsidered 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. Thedesignations of judges, therefore, ought to be uniform across the country. In this regard, the FNJPC suggested the following nomenclature to beadopted pan-India:18Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 17.19Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19. ABCDEFGH59ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]i.Civil Judge (Jr. Div);ii. Civil Judge (Sr. Div);iii. District Judge.43. A thorough examination by the SNJPC revealed that thesedesignations have not been adopted in few states.

It was stated by the Commission that the State of Kerala still designates its judges as Munsiffand ‘Subordinate Judge’. In the North-Eastern States too, it was seenthat there was some divergence of designation. Uniformity would requirethese to be amended in order to be brought under the same umbrella. Pertinently, this recommendation had been accepted in the FNJPC byvirtue 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 followedby the High Courts and all High Courts amend their designations inconformity with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC.44. It is also relevant to note that in light of the pay matrix suggestedby the SNJPC, without uniform designations, issues may arise in thefuture for fitment of the different designations which are used in thedifferent 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 thatthe designation of judicial officers is uniformly the same as mentioned inthe 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 ofpay for judges. Notably, this Court has already accepted thisrecommendation by Order dated 27.07.2022.21 This has been confirmedin Order dated 05.04.2023. As the recommendation of the SNJPC isonly to bring the pay structure in conformity with the 7th Central PayCommission, there cannot be any objection on these recommendations. Thus, it is directed that the pay structure of the Judicial Officers bemodified suitably, reflecting the recommendations suggested by theSNJPC.20 All India Judges’ Assn.

(II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 19 and 20.21Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 17. ABCDEFGH60SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application(Recommendations 44.4-44.6)47. The Multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 has beensuggested 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 notbeen suggested by the 7th CPC to all cadres of officers. It is their saythat when the Central Pay Commission adopted a graduated fitmentfactor ranging from 2.57 for entry level officers to 2.81 for officers ofthe level of Secretary to the Government of India, the judicial officerscould not have been granted a uniform multiplier/IoR of 2.81.48. Their submission is erroneous because, as stated above, thepay of judicial officers is to be increased commensurate to the pay ofthe Judges of High Courts.

When the judges of the High Courts weregranted a multiplier of 2.81, the judicial officers were also to be grantedthe same multiplier. This has been the precedent set by the previousJudicial Pay Commissions and endorsed by this Court repeatedly.2249. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that this Court hasalready rejected the objections of the States and the Union andconsequently accepted the multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 in Order dated 27.07.202223 and Order dated 05.04.202324. As stated above, the principled basis of the acceptance is that the pay of judicial officersin 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 thepay 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 increasedas 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 existingsystem of accrual of increment once a year as per the date of appointment22See Para 15.50 of FNJPC report and Para 4.8 of the Padmanabhan CommissionReport. Also see, the Orders of this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 and All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14SCC 720 at para 6.23 Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 15 - 16.24Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19. ABCDEFGH61ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]or promotion or the date of financial upgradation. The sole change itsuggested was that judicial officers should have the benefit of incrementfalling due the next day following their retirement.

The Commissionsuggested that this benefit of an additional increment shall be for thepurposes 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 whenhe is not in service on the date of accrual. This is because the incrementis a benefit for the year of service already rendered. Therefore, the lastpay, for the purposes of calculation of pension should include theincrement payable to the judicial officer.53. Three sets of decisions had been rendered by different HighCourts regarding this. The first view, which was taken by the High Courtsof Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Allahabad, is that when the incrementbecomes due the next day after retirement, the employee ought not tobe denied the benefit of the increment for the purposes of pay. Thesecond view, which was taken by the High Courts of Madras, Orissaand Delhi is that the increment would accrue to officers only for thepurpose of pension alone.

The third view, taken by the Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts is that the increment cannotbe granted to the officers.54. The law has now been settled by this Court in a recent judgmentDirector, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani.25 This Court approved thejudgment of the High Court of Allahabad’s view in Nand Vijay Singh v.Union of India26 it was held:

24. … In the case of a government servant retiring on 30thof June the next day on which increment falls due/becomespayable looses significance and must give way to the right ofthe government servant to receive increment due to satisfactoryservices of a year so that the scheme is not construed in amanner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrinedin Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

55. In such circumstances, the recommendations of the Commission in so far as it notionally grants the increment for the purposesof pension is completely justified.

As a consequence of the acceptance25 (2023) SCC Online SC 401 at para 18.26 Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2021) SCC Online All 1090 at para 24. ABCDEFGH62SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.of the recommendation, the calculation of pension must notionally includethe increment for the purposes of calculation of pension. This will alsoobviate any confusion. It is therefore directed that the High Courts amendthe applicable rule to state that the increment which becomes due to thejudicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally includedin the calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the verticalceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to PayMatrix System (Recommendations 44.8, 44.9, 44.10)56. The Court notes that the Commission has recommended theformula and method to ensure that the migration from the master payscale to the pay matrix system is smooth.

The Commission has devisedthe follow fitment/migration formula:

i. Multiply the existing pay by the factor of 2.81.ii. The figure so arrived at to be located in Table-I, inrelation to the Level applicable to the Officer (i.e., J1, J2etc.)iii. Where there is an identical figure available in Table-Iat the corresponding stage of the relevant level, the newrevised pay shall be fixed at that stage.iv. Where there is no identical figure available, the newrevised pay has to be fixed at the very next higher stage inthat level in Table-I.

57. In order to make matters clear, the Commission has also givenillustrations so as to simplify the fitment/migration formula for the relevantauthorities. These illustrations ought to be considered by the authoritieswhile encoding the rules for the migration to the pay matrix system.27 Itmay be noted that the Commission has submitted a Corrigendum to itsReport in March 2021 which has removed certain arithmetical mistakesfrom 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 havealso been devised for fixation of pay of judicial officers who werepromoted on or after 01.01.2016 in the following terms:27See Paras 13.5 at p.75 – 80 and Para 13.8 at p.81 – 82 of the Report. ABCDEFGH63ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]

i. Identify the level and the basic pay in Table I on thedate of promotion. ii. Add one increment in that level itself in terms of FR-22.iii. The figure so arrived at or the next closest figure in thelevel to which s(he) is promoted will be the new pay onpromotion.

The examples provided by the Commission also proceed thereafterto lend clarity to the formula for promotes as well.59. While accepting this recommendation for fitment/migrationas amended by the Corrigendum dated March 2021, it is also noted thatthe examples must form part of the relevant rules that are required to beencoded by the High Courts, the States and the Union.

Therefore, weaccept the recommendation and direct the authorities to implement thesame 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 from01.01.2016. However, the last pay revision of the judicial officers waswith effect from 01.01.2006. More than 17 years have passed since thejudicial officers have received a pay revision. Noting this, therecommendation must be accepted by this Court. Pertinently, this hasalready been noticed by this Court in its Order dated 27.07.2022.28 Further, the previous Judicial Pay Commissions had also recommended revisionof pay with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively. Noobjection can therefore be made regarding the application of the paystructure from 01.01.2016. This recommendation thus merits acceptance.

Thus, it is directed that the benefits of the recommendations as regardspay be given effect to with effect from 01.01.2016.VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order dated27.07.2022 (Modification of Recommendation No.44.13)61. While the Commission suggested that the arrears of pay begiven during the calendar year 2020, this Court after considering thesubmissions of the Union and the State that the payment of arrears at28Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at Para 21. ABCDEFGH64SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.one go may not be possible and by Order dated 27.07.2022 directed thatthe payments be made in three separate installments. As per this Orderas well, the final installment was payable by 30.06.2023. States hadalready sought extension of time to complete payments in the first twoinstalments. Considering the grievances of the States, by Order dated18.01.2023, this Court directed: “All the States/Union Territories which have made paymentof only the first installment or the first two installments andthe States and Union Territories which have come up withapplications for extension of time, are permitted to makepayment of arrears, at least within the time indicated in thisorder.

The States and Union Territories which have not yetmade payment of the first installment, shall make payment ofthe first installment by 31.03.2023. These States and UnionTerritories, as well as those who have already made paymentof the first installment, shall make payment of the secondinstallment by 30.04.2023. The third and final installmentshall be made by 30.06.2023.” VIII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government(Recommendation 44.14)62. The recommendation of the SNJPC is that DearnessAllowance may be paid at the rate fixed by the Central Government. Itmay be noted that the Commission has found that the rates fixed by the Central Government are normally accepted by the State across thecountry. The purpose of dearness allowance, as explained by this Courtin Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen(1969) 2 SCR 113, is “to neutralise a portion of the increase in thecost of living.” When the rates which are fixed by the CentralGovernment are followed by most of the States, the recommendation ofthe SNJPC is reasonable.

This recommendation is also in the interestsof uniformity of service conditions of judicial officers across the country, which, as stated above, is a cardinal principle on the basis of which thepresent proceedings are based. Notably, a fixed rate of DearnessAllowance would also ensure that there is no lag in the accrual of thedearness 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. TheStates of Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, and Mizoram have argued ABCDEFGH65ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]that their rates must be adopted. Other States have not specifically statedanything with regard of rates of DA. It is observed that that a uniformrate 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 CareerProgression be given to the Civil Judges (Jr Div) be granted on the basisof 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 inhis first two years. Assessment of the officer’s performance when thefirst two years are riddled with trainings and deputations cannot be donein 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, theinability of the Officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or notsatisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of judicial careerneed not be viewed seriously, especially having regard to the objectivebehind the ACP.65. Another aspect is that judicial officers serving in the cadre of Civil Judge (Jr.

Div.) have only two promotional avenues available tothem, i.e., Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and District Judge. Without anypromotional avenues, the stagnation in the service causes loss of moraleto judicial officers which has a direct bearing on their independence.66. It may be noted that the Limited Competitive Examinationwhich has been introduced by virtue of this Hon’ble Court’s judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India29 only applies to thecadre of Civil Judges (Sr. Div.) to the cadre of District Judges. Thepercentage reserved for LCE was initially 25%. This was reduced to10% by All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India30.67. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, relaxed the aforesaid conditions only for the Delhi Higher JudicialServices in so far as it permits candidates with experience of 10 years toappear for the Limited Competitive Examination for becoming DistrictJudges.31 At the same time, it is noticed that the Maharashtra JudicialService Rules, 2008 envisages an additional method for promotion for29All India Judges’ Assn. v.

Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 at para 28.30All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170 (para 7-8).31All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC 494. ABCDEFGH66SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.Civil Judges (Jr Div) by conducting a separate Limited CompetitiveExamination for them to be promoted to the position of Civil Judges (SrDiv).32 It may be noted that there is no rule for the participation of CivilJudge (Jr. Div.) in the Limited Competitive Examination to be recruitedas District Judge.68. As regards the relaxed norms which could apply for the 1stACP, it is noted that the SNJPC has recommended that the scrutiny forthe grant of First ACP will be limited to ascertaining whether there isanything positively adverse such as there is any poor/unsatisfactoryperformance or there being an adverse report of serious nature leadingto the inference that the officer is unfit to have the benefit of the 1stACP. A similar provision already exists in Rule 3(5) of the MaharashtraJudicial 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. Sucha rule is only an illustration. High Courts may devise other methods forthese relaxed norms.69. It is thus directed that the grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (JrDiv) be given on the basis of relaxed norms which may be devised bythe 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 19.5shows that, in many states, the grant of ACP scale is delayed. TheCommission found that in certain jurisdictions, even after completion ofmore than 10 years of service, ACP was not granted to Civil Judges (JrDiv) and Civil Judges (Sr Div). This is unpardonable. Stagnation of careersof judicial officers due to administrative delays causes loss of moraleand enthusiasm in vital stages of their careers, where they are entitled tobe considered for career progression.71.

The SNJPC’s finding that the lack of timely preparation andscrutiny of ACR is the primary reason behind delay is concerning. ACRsare bound to be done in a timely manner and without delay so as toensure that the whole judicial system is functioning in an efficient manner. Accordingly, the High Courts may be directed to ensure that the delay inmaking ACRs is avoided in the future.32Rule 5, Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. ABCDEFGH67ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]72. Separately, to avoid this delay in the future, the Commissionsuggested that the process of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 monthsin advance from the date on which the judicial officers will be completing5/10 years and the financial benefits should be paid to the judicial officerwithin a period of 6 months after the judicial officer steps into the 6th/11th year of Service. Therefore, the Commission recommended that ifgrant of ACP is delayed for every year, one additional increment shall begranted for every year of delay subject to the adjustment with the ACParrears.73.

The recommendations of the Commission are reasonable. Asstated above, delays ought to be avoided on the administrative side whichhave the effect of stagnating the career of a judicial officer. Thesuggestions of the Commission will bring about much needed efficiencyand perhaps, a standard operating procedure for the grant of ACP in atimely manner. Thus, the recommendation merits acceptance.XI. Changes in Percentage of District Judges (SelectionGrade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale)(Recommendation 44.16)74. The Commission has recommended the increase of percentageof district judges who will be entitled to District Judge (Selection Grade)and District Judge (Super Time Scale). The reasoning of the Commissionis that due to the limited percentage of District Judge (Super Time Scale)and District Judge (Selection Grade), many judges from larger statesare unable to reach higher posts before retirement even though theyhave spent considerable time in the District Judge Cadre.

It also foundthat as of October, 2019 only 1515 judges out of a cadre strength of7382 district judges were getting the benefit of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale.75. The benefits of Super Time Scale and Selection Grade notreaching a majority of district judges prior to their retirement is a situationthat should be avoided. The recommendation of the Commission thatthe Selection grade and Super Time Scale posts should be increased by10% and 5% respectively merits acceptance. Essentially, this would entailthat the District Judges at Entry level shall be 50%, selection grade 35%and Super Time Scale – 15% of the total cadre strength of DistrictJudges. ABCDEFGH68SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.76. The Recommendations 44.16 (ii) and (iii) are regarding theupgradation to be given to District Judges by applying the principle ofseniority-cum-merit and further that if the post remains or continues forthree years it shall form part of cadre strength.

These recommendationsof the SNJPC may be considered at the appropriate stage as they do nothave 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 (Recommendation44.19)77. Though Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, both statutorycourts created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194733 are not presidedover by judicial officers, they are entitled to equal pay as district judgesbased on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Following this principle, this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar34 and State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn.35 held that judicialofficers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunal ought to be consideredon par with judicial officers. The recommendation of the Tribunal thatthe pay revision be extended to judges of the Industrial Tribunals/LabourCourts, thus merits acceptance as it is only an extension of the law laiddown by this Court.XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra(Recommendation 44.18)78.

The Commission noticed that the Judges in the Family Courtsin Maharashtra are recruited through a separate process and the officersform part of a separate cadre. At the same time, Rule 8 of the Judges ofthe Family Courts (Recruitment and Service Conditions) MaharashtraRules, 1990 also provides that the judge shall draw pay and allowancesat par with the judges (Principal Judge, Additional Principal Judge and Judge respectively) of the City Civil Court, Bombay and at other placespay and allowances as admissible to the District Judge.79. The recommendation of the Commission is that the Judges ofthe Family Court also be entitled to the benefit of Selection Grade and33 Section 7 and 7A of the Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947 respectively.34 State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC 219 at para 19.35 State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688 at para20. ABCDEFGH69ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v.

UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]Super Time Scale as well. The Commission further recommends thatquarters also be given to them from the general pool of accommodation.80. The recommendation of the SNJPC is in line with the sameprinciples mentioned above in as laid down by this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar36 and State of Maharashtra v.LabourLaw Practitioners’ Assn.37 for Labour Courts. When equal work isdone by the judicial officers, their pay and conditions of service mustalso be equal. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission is accepted.XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special JudicialMagistrates (Second Class) and Special MetropolitanMagistrates (Recommendation 44.19)81. A reading of para 36 of the report of the Commission showsthat in some states, officials who have worked in the judiciary, retiredexecutive officials possessing law degree etc. are appointed as SpecialJudicial Magistrates under Sections 11 and 13 of the CrPC, 1973.

TheCommission noted that in some states they are paid very meagreremuneration and consequently has recommended a minimum pay ofRs. 30,000 per month and a conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/-. TheCommission has further recommended that this benefit shall be givenfrom 01.04.2019.82. The amicus has argued that even Rs. 30,000 is insufficienttoday and such a low amount might not meet the minimum wagerequirements in certain states. Considering that under Section 261, CrPC,1973 such Magistrates can try offences which are punishable with fineor imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, such Magistrates cannot beconsidered as discharging judicial functions that are incomparable toregular Magistrates. As such, their financial independence is as much apart of judicial independence as is for regular Magistrates. Thus, therecommendation of the Commission modified by fixing the remunerationat Rs. 45,000/- per month plus an additional sum of Rs.

5,000/- asconveyance allowance.83. For the purpose of convenience, the recommendations andtheir modifications/acceptance is tabulated below:36 State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC 219 at para 19.37 State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688 at para20. ABCDEFGH70SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.Recommendation No. Recommendation Order of this Court 44.1 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. Accepted 44.2 The new pay structure shall be as per the ‘Pay 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 Accepted 44.3 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 Accepted 44.4, 44.5 The initial pay for each rank of officer isabout 2.81 times the existing entry pay of each rank except J-6 and J-7, which is in thesame proportion of increase as that of the High Court Judge.

Accordingly, the first rowin the horizontal range (J-1 to J-7) denotesthe entry pay for fresh recruits/appointees inthat level. Accepted 44.6 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 Accepted 44.7 The annual increment shall be @3% 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. Accepted 44.8 In the Pay Matrix pattern, there shall be now 37 stages instead of 44 Accepted 44.9 The fitment/migration of the existing officers shall be as reflected in Table II at para 13.3, p.73 Accepted – to be read with Corrigendum dated March 2021 submitted by the SNJPC ABCDEFGH71ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]44.10 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 44.11(i) 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. Accepted 44.11(ii) 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/-. Accepted 44.12 The pay of the judicial officers of all ranks/grades in the new pay matrix/pay structure shall be effective from 01.01.2016 Accepted 44.13 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.

Accepted 44.14 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. Accepted ABCDEFGH72SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.44.15(i) 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 44.15(ii) 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. Accepted 44.16(i) 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 Accepted 44.16(ii) The upgradation benefit shall be given to the District Judges by applying the principle of seniority-cum-merit instead of merit-cum-seniority.

To be considered at the relevant stage 44.16(iii) If the post remains or continues for three years it shall form part of cadre strength. To be considered at the relevant stage 44.17 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. Accepted 44.18 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.

Accepted 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 ABCDEFGH73ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITYAND AGE OF RETIREMENT ETC84. We will now deal with the recommendations of SNJPC on Pension, Gratuity etc. For the purposes of convenience, therecommendations are set out below: Recommendation No. Recommendation 39.1 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 39.2 Revised pension of retired judicial officers would be 50% of last drawn pay 39.3 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 39.4 Judicial officers who retired prior to 01.01.2016 to be placed notionally at the corresponding stage. 39.5 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. 39.6 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. Family Pension 4.1 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 4.2 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.

4.3 The quantum of family pension shall be worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out. 4.4 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). ABCDEFGH74SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension 21.1 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 21.2 This benefit of additional pension shall be available to all eligible pensioners/family pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016. 21.3 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 21.4 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.

Gratuity 8.1 Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Rule 50(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. 8.2 The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. 8.3 These recommendations shall be effective from 01.01.2016. 8.4 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. 8.5 The death gratuity shall be paid as per table in p.52, Vol. II on the basis of length in service Retirement Age of Judicial Officers No change in retirement age of 60 years recommended Financial Assistance in Case of Death 9.1 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.

9.2 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. ABCDEFGH75ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]Assistance to Pensioners/Family Pensioners 11.1 Special attention shall be bestowed to them by rendering due assistance for processing the medical bills of the pensioners/family pensioners who are too old, infirm or differently abled or undergoing in-patient treatment for serious ailment 11.2 District Judge shall nominate a Nodal Officer for liasoning work, if required, in emergency in facilitating admission in the hospital and getting the medical bills of the pensioners/family pensioners cleared promptly. 11.3 Special Cell entrusted with the responsibility of the processing the representations of the pensioners/family pensioners and to initiate action as may be considered appropriate to redress the grievance expediously, shall be created in the High Court under the supervision of an officer of the rank of Joint Registrar, in the High Court.

11.4 A Judge of the High Court shall be nominated to oversee the functioning of Special Cell and issue necessary instructions. 11.5 The representatives of the Retired Judges Associations shall be permitted to meet the Registrar General of the High Court atleast once in a year to discuss the problems, if any. 11.6 The Registry of the High Courts to compile data of the pensioners and family pensioners. National Pension Scheme 31.1 The National Pension System (NPS)/Defined Contributory Pension Scheme shall not be applicable to all judicial officers. 31.2 The Defined Benefit Pension Scheme/Old Pension Scheme shall be applicable to all Judicial officers irrespective of the date of their joining the judicial service. 31.3 For those who have judicial service after 01.01.2004, the contributions together with the returns earned thereon will be refunded to them or transferred to their GPC account. 31.4 The Government shall facilitate opening of the GPF Account of the new entrants to the judicial service after 01.01.2004 and transfer their contribution with the returns earned thereon.

ABCDEFGH76SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.7. CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ONPENSION, GRATUITY ETC85. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pensionare 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 thecurrent percentage of pension, fixed at 50% of last drawn pay for pensionand 30% for last drawn pay for family pension. The FNJPC had alsorecommended this position and this Court had accepted it. Therefore, when no change is recommended, no real objections can be raisedregarding the recommendation.II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be50% of the Last Drawn Pay87. After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the One-Person Commission, the Commission recommended that for judicialofficers who retired before 01.01.2016, the revised pension should be50% 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, thepensioners also will be equally benefitted. The recommendation of the Commission is that the multiplier of 2.81 will equally apply to pensionersas well. As a consequence thereof, the pensioners will also be fitted intothe table and pension will be paid to them on this basis. In other words, toensure parity of pension between judicial officers who retired at thesame level but under different pay scales, the pension must be broughton par. After extensive analysis, the Commission has also included certainillustrations to make its recommendations clear. The illustrations lendclarity to the recommendation and thus ought to be read along with therecommendation.89. It may be noted that as with the recommendation on fitment inpay, the SNJPC has issued a corrigendum on fitment in its SupplementalReport dated March 2021.

This Corrigendum corrects arithmeticalmistakes made in the original report. Therefore, the fitment table mustbe construed in accordance with the corrected table on fitment. ABCDEFGH77ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]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 samescheme in the pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted.IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers whoRetired Prior to 01.01.1996 (Recommendation no. 39.5)91. The Commission noted that due to a discrepancy in the reportof the One-Person Commission, the pension granted to judicial officerswho retired after 2006 was not being given in parity to those who retiredbefore 2006.

This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India,(2014) 14 SCC 444 (dated 08.10.2012) was apprised of the errorcommitted by the One-Person Commission and directed this to becorrected. However, the prayer in the application was limited to post-2006 retirees. In a second38 and third round39 of litigation, the SupremeCourt directed all the State Governments to follow its Order dated08.10.2012 and directed revision of pension for those who retired post-1996. By way of abundant caution, the Commission recommended thatthose States which have not granted this benefit to those who retiredbefore 1996, must be given the same benefit.92. The recommendation of the Commission is only in furtheranceof parity. State Governments have, in the past, been directed to undertakethe consequential re-fixation before. However, if such consequential re-fixation has not been undertaken, the officers who had retired prior to1996, and who would have aged significantly would be discriminatedagainst.

Such a situation ought to be avoided and thus the recommendationmerits acceptance. This Court directs this recommendation to beimplemented immediately and without delay.V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculatingpension (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 of38 Order dated 14.07.2016 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India in WP(C) No.1022/1989.39 Order dated 13.03.2018 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India in WP(C) No.1022/1989. ABCDEFGH78SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.years of practice at the Bar subject to the maximum of weightage of 10years shall be given while calculating pension and other retiral benefits. This Court in Government of NCT Delhi reasoned that this would berequired as otherwise a direct recruit from the bar who becomes a DistrictJudge would not be entitled to full pension.

The recommendation, beingthe implementation of the judgment of this Court, merits acceptance. Itis accordingly ordered.VI. Recommendations on Family Pension (RecommendationNos. 4.1 to 4.4)94. As regards family pension, the Commission has notrecommended any change in the existing percentage, i.e., 30% of thelast drawn pay. Therefore, this recommendation, as such, does notwarrant any further deliberation as it is the mere continuation of theexisting regime. The recommendation is accepted.95. At the same time, the Commission has recommended paymentof family pension @ 30% to the eligible family member after the deathof the spouse. This benefit has been given in light of Rule 54 CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similar benefits to members of thecentral civil services. This recommendation is also thus accepted as ithas been granted to members of the central civil services.96. Obviously, the quantum of family pension must be increasedas per the same multiplier/index of rationalization applicable for pension.

This is because the same factors which are applicable to pay and pensionleading to their increase also equally apply to family pension. TheCommission has also recommended the same. We accept therecommendation and direct that the quantum of family pension alsoworked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out.97. The last recommendation is that on the income limit prescribedby States to be eligible for family pension. The minimum limit prescribedby the Commission was Rs. 30,000/-. This limit is reasonable but it mustbe left to the discretion of the States to prescribe a higher limit which ismore beneficial to the judicial officers. Thus, the recommendation isaccepted.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 increasingage, it has been the policy of the Central Government to grant additionalquantum of pension.

The Commission has recommended the payment ABCDEFGH79ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75 years onwards atthe rates mentioned in the table on p.44 of the Report.99. It is seen that different states have different ages for thegrant of additional quantum of pension and family pension. The 7th CPCsuggested the age of 80 years as the minimum. High Court and SupremeCourt judges also receive additional quantum of pension at the age of 80years. It was however argued by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate thatas District Judges retire at a younger age, the additional quantum ofpension should accrue to them at a younger age as well.100. Given that many of the States granted this benefit from theage of 70 and the Commission recommended the grant of additionalquantum of pension from the age of 75. This reasoning of the Commissionmerits acceptance.

If States have been granting more beneficial pensionrates, it cannot be denied to the judicial officers. Judicial Officers cannotbe left worse off than officers of the State. Therefore, this Court acceptsthis recommendation.101. The Commission has further recommended that this benefitbe paid from 01.01.2016. As with the other similar recommendations forthe aspects of pay and pension, this recommendation is accepted.102. The concern of the Commission, reflected in RecommendationNo.21.3, that recovery will be initiated against officers who have beengiven additional pension from the age of 65 or 70 is genuine. If judicialofficers have already been granted a more beneficial regime and aremoved to the regime suggested by the Commission and accepted by the Court, no recovery ought to be made against them. Consequently, it isleft to the States to continue the benefits upto the age of 75 years aswell. 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 isto bring the calculation of gratuity on par with Rule 50(1)(a) of the CentralCivil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There cannot be any disputeregarding this recommendation as it is to bring about uniformity inconditions of service. Therefore, this recommendation merits acceptanceby this Court.104. The Commission further recommended that the maximumlimit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which ABCDEFGH80SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. Thisrecommendation has also been made in accordance with the Report ofthe 7th CPC, and the purpose of the same is to ensure that the cost ofliving does not make the gratuity without purpose. Therefore, thisrecommendation also merits acceptance by the Court.105. The third recommendation is to make the recommendationseffective from 01.01.2016.

This has now been settled by this Court beforeand has been reiterated in the present judgment as well. Therecommendations must come into force from 01.01.2016. Consequentially, those judicial officers who retired after 01.01.2016 must also benefitfrom the acceptance of the Report. Thus, the Commission has suggestedthat the differential gratuity be paid to them subject to the revisedmaximum limit. This is merely consequential and is accepted by this Court. It is accordingly ordered.106. The final recommendation made by the Commission on thesubject of gratuity is that death gratuity be paid on the same lines as the7th CPC. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted as it is in linewith the already accepted principles laid down by this Court.IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age107. No change has been recommended by the Commission tothe retirement age of judicial officers. No opinion, therefore, is expressedon this subject by this Court.X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of Death108.

The Commission has recommended that where a judicialofficer dies while in service, the family pension and death cum retirementgratuity as per the applicable rules is payable to the spouse/dependent, of the deceased officer. The recommendation of the Commission is interms of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This recommendationis reasonable and in furtherance of the principle of uniformity acrossservices. Therefore, it merits acceptance by this Court.XI. Recommendations on Assistance to Pensioners109. The Commission has made some well-consideredrecommendations on assistance to be given to pensioners and familypensioners. While they may merit acceptance, it is appropriate to considerthem at a later stage as they do not require any change in principles or ABCDEFGH81ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]amendments to any rules but are merely executive in nature.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the recommendations may be consideredat a later stage.XII. Recommendations on Abolition of New Pension Scheme110. This Court has been apprised of the recommendations madeby the Commission regarding the non-applicability of the New PensionScheme to judicial officers. However, given the objections raised to thisissue by a number of States, the issue may be dealt with separately afterhearing the states. Therefore, this recommendation too will be consideredat a later stage.111. The resultant position on the recommendations is tabulatedbelow for convenience: Recommendation No. Recommendation Order of this Court 39.1 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 Accepted 39.2 Revised pension of retired judicial officers would be 50% of last drawn pay Accepted 39.3 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 39.4 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 39.5 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 39.6 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. Accepted ABCDEFGH82SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.Family Pension 4.1 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 Accepted 4.2 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.

Accepted 4.3 The quantum of family pension shall be worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out. Accepted 4.4 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 – with liberty to States to grant more beneficial position Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension 21.1 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 Accepted 21.2 This benefit of additional pension shall be available to all eligible pensioners/family pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Accepted 21.3 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 Accepted 21.4 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.

Accepted Gratuity 8.1 Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Rule 50(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Accepted 8.2 The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. Accepted 8.3 These recommendations shall be effective from 01.01.2016. Accepted 8.4 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. Accepted 8.5 The death gratuity shall be paid as per table in p.52, Vol. II on the basis of length in service Accepted ABCDEFGH83ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]Retirement Age of Judicial Officers No change in retirement age of 60 years recommended Accepted Financial Assistance in Case of Death 9.1 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.

Accepted 9.2 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. Accepted Assistance to Pensioners/Family Pensioners 11.1 Special attention shall be bestowed to them by rendering due assistance for processing the medical bills of the pensioners/family pensioners who are too old, infirm or differently abled or undergoing in-patient treatment for serious ailment To be considered at a later stage 11.2 District Judge shall nominate a Nodal Officer for liasoning work, if required, in emergency in facilitating admission in the hospital and getting the medical bills of the pensioners/family pensioners cleared promptly. 11.3 Special Cell entrusted with the responsibility of the processing the representations of the pensioners/family pensioners and to initiate action as may be considered appropriate to redress the grievance expediously, shall be created in the High Court under the supervision of an officer of the rank of Joint Registrar, in the High Court.

11.4 A Judge of the High Court shall be nominated to oversee the functioning of Special Cell and issue necessary instructions. 11.5 The representatives of the Retired Judges Associations shall be permitted to meet the Registrar General of the High Court atleast once in a year to discuss the problems, if any. 11.6 The Registry of the High Courts to compile data of the pensioners and family pensioners. National Pension Scheme 31.1 The National Pension System (NPS)/Defined Contributory Pension Scheme shall not be applicable to all judicial officers. To be considered at a later stage 31.2 The Defined Benefit Pension Scheme/Old Pension Scheme shall be applicable to all Judicial officers irrespective of the date of their joining the judicial service. 31.3 For those who have judicial service after 01.01.2004, the contributions together with the returns earned thereon will be refunded to them or transferred to their GPC account.

31.4 The Government shall facilitate opening of the GPF Account of the new entrants to the judicial service after 01.01.2004 and transfer their contribution with the returns earned thereon. ABCDEFGH84SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 7 S.C.R.8. CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTIONS112. Ultimately, the effect of the acceptance of therecommendations of this Court is that necessary amendments must becarried 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 therecommendations accepted by this Court above within a period of 3months. 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 arrearsof pay be cleared by 30.06.2023.

In this regard, it is directedthatcompliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union Territoriesby 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited intothe accounts of the concerned officers.114. The revised rates of pension, which have been approved bythis Court, shall be payable from 01.07.2023. For the payment of arrearsof pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits as well, following the Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, it is directed that25% will be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and theremaining 50% by 31.12.2023.115. List on 17.7.2023 for further compliance on pay and pensionon which date this Court will take up the recommendations on allowances. Divya PandeyDirections issued. (Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)