Pay Hike For Judicial Officers : Supreme Court Agrees To Grant Extension For States Which Sought Time For Compliance

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday heard a petition seeking implement of the order dated 22.07.2022 which had directed the Center and the States to pay judicial officers pension as per the enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission. The matter was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. 

At the outset, Advocate K Parmeshwar, who was appointed the amicus curiae, in the matter, drew the attention of the bench to his note and submitted that starting from 2002, judges had not been getting pensions and were instead receiving "Career Average Revalued Earnings" for which they had to contribute. This was leaving the judges without any security post retirement. 

He submitted that seventeen States had compiled with the order directing for an enhanced pay scale, two States(Haryana & Manipur) had filed review petitions along with the Union, and three states (Odisha, Punjab and Tamil Nadu) had sought for an extension of time to comply with the order. He further submitted that there had been no response from the rest of the States. The State of Uttar Pradesh's counsel told the bench that it is in the process of filing a review. Some states like West Bengal reported part-compliance.

The amicus further informed that the States which have complied have made the payments subject to recovery if any adverse order is passed in future. The bench said that recovery cannot be made.

As per the order passed in July 2022, the court had asked the arrears to be paid to the officers in 3 instalments - 25% in 3 months, another 25% in next 3 months and balance by June 30, 2023. CJI DY Chandrachud stated–

"We will upload the order in the evening. We will give time for compliance. The reviews will be uploaded before an appropriate bench. Those who have sought extension of time to comply will be given time to comply. October instalment by 31st March, December instalment by 30th April and June 2023 stands on time. No recovery to be made by any state in terms of our order of 22nd of July."

Submissions of the All India Judges' Association

AIJA was represented by Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR and Advocate Vyom Raghuvanshi.

1. The recommendations by Second National Judicial Pay Commission shall be applied for pension revision, Multiplier/factor applied for pay revision shall be applied for revision of pension. 

2. The intention of the order of the Supreme Court was never to exclude the senior most members of the Petitioner Association i.e., the retired judges and family pensioners, many of whom are more than 80 years old and are eagerly waiting for revision of their pension. 

3. Despite the orders of the Court, the following have not even issued a Government Order/Resolution implementing the order:

i.) State of Haryana

ii.) State of Madhya Pradesh

iii.) State of Manipur

iv.) State of Punjab

v.) State of Uttar Pradesh

vi.) National Capital Territory of Delhi

4. The judicial officers were provided interim relief @ 30% of the basic pay through the order. Therefore, the arrears shall be computed with effect from 01.01.2016 and after adjusting the interim relief already paid, the balance amount shall be paid in stages in the following manner:

I. 25% in cash within a period of 3 months;

II. Another 25% to be paid in cash within 3 months thereafter;

III. the balance 50% has to be paid on or before the end of June, 2023.

5. The Court in its order had observed that the primary objection to the implementation of various directions concerning the service conditions of the judges of trial courts is an alleged paucity of financial resources which have been rejected by this Hon’ble Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288. Thus, it was directed by the court that the Respondents will not re-agitate the objections that have already been rejected in the earlier round of litigation. The court also observed that compared to the other plan and non-plan expenditures, the financial burden caused on account of the directions were negligible.

6. The court through its order had permitted the Respondents to submit their response even though the recommendations were made only after consulting all the stakeholders extensively. Thus, the order was passed only after considering all the objections raised by the Respondents.  Further the fact that the order has been implemented by others States show that the time granted by the Court was more than sufficient to complete all the procedural and administrative requirements to revise pay and pay arrears to the Judges of District Judiciary. 

7. The allowances recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission are not different from the allowances recommended by the First National Judicial Pay Commission and it is only the amount which has been increased considering the hike in the prices of commodities and services. The rationale behind recommendations is same as that of the earlier Commission and the same were accepted by the Supreme Court in earlier round of litigation.

Background

The Supreme Court had ordered for implementation of the enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2016. The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also directed the Center and the States to pay the arrears to the officers in 3 instalments - 25% in 3 months, another 25% in next 3 months and balance by June 30, 2023.

The Second National Judicial Pay Commission was constituted by the Apex Court in 2017 for reviewing the pay scale and other conditions of Judicial Officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary all over the country. The Bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and Abdul Nazeer had appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice PV Reddy as commission Chairman and former Kerala High Court Judge and Senior Supreme Court lawyer R.Basant as member.

Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015

Click Here To Read Order