Judicial Officers' Pay : Supreme Court Summons Chief & Finance Secretaries Of States Which Haven't Cleared Arrears

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 11) came down heavily on several State Governments for not complying with the directions issued to clear the arrears of pay and allowances of judicial officers in terms of the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).

The Court asked the defaulting States to comply with the directions by August 20, 2024. It further directed that the Chief Secretary and the Finance Secretary of these defaulting States (listed in detail below) shall remain personally present before the Court with compliance affidavits on August 23, 2024.

Besides the above, the Court warned that if the states/UTs fail to comply with the directions in the stipulated time, it would be constrained to initiate contempt action against the concerned officials.

The states/UTs which had not filed the compliance affidavits and/or not complied with the directions passed in the Supreme Court judgment (as mentioned during the proceedings) include: Andhra Pradesh (which claims payments were made to the extent bills were uploaded on web portal), West Bengal, Chhattisgarh (which seeks one year's time to comply), Delhi (which claims it needs approval from Centre), Assam (which claims difficulty on account of floods), Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, and Tripura.

The states/UTs whose Chief Secretary and Finance Secretary have been ordered to appear personally on August 23 include: West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, and Tripura.

The hearing began with Amicus Curiae-Advocate K Parmeswar highlighting to the court that its judgment of January 2024 had not been fully complied with by most states/UTs despite the time for payment being extended on as many as 7 occasions. "This is the 6th or 7th time your Lordships are asking them to pay up...", he said.

Taking note, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra recorded, "Though 7 opportunities have been granted to the states, it appears full compliance has not been affected".

Parmeswar also raised the issue of states/UTs deducting TDS on judicial officers' allowances, which the CJI acknowledged as wrong and said orally that if any TDS has been deducted on allowances (despite exemption under the Income Tax Act), the same shall be refunded to the judicial officers.

The bench even expressed displeasure with the state governments for treating judicial officers differently, compared to the state civil services officers. "We are usually circumspect in directing the personal presence of officers of the state. However, this is a situation where administrative officers in the executive have received revision of their payscales and other allowances wef January 1, 2016...judicial officers are yet to receive the revised payscales and allowances...the arrears which are due to them in terms of the SNJPC though 8 years have elapsed", CJI remarked.

To recap, on January 4 this year, the Court had passed a judgment directing states to implement the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) regarding pay and allowances for judicial officers, and to pay the arrears by February 29.

Insofar as it was argued that the pay and allowances of judicial officers and other government officers should be equivalent, the court observed that judicial service cannot be equated with the service of other officers of the Government.

"Judges are not comparable with the administrative executive. They discharge sovereign state functions and just like the Council of Ministers or the political executive and their service is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the political executive, judges are distinct from judicial staff, and are thus comparable with the political executive and legislature".

For a detailed report on the judgment, click here.

Background

In July 2022, the Supreme Court had directed the implementation of enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2016. The bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also directed the Centre and 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. Revised directions on disbursal of arrears were passed by the Court in May 2023.

The Second National Judicial Pay Commission was constituted by the Apex Court in 2017 to review the pay scale and other conditions of Judicial Officers belonging to the district judiciary all over the country. A 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 members.

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