JUDGMENT : In I.A. No. 103: 1. In terms of order dated 9th August, 2002, prayers (ii). (iii) and (v) alone are required to be examined. These prayers read as under: "(ii) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to clarify that Assured Career Progression Scheme is confined to the districts/ States/Union Territories where the Judge strength is maintained at the present level, and further clarify that the same would not apply to those denied promotion; (iii) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify its direction in relation to medical facilities that the facilities provided to the subordinate judiciary can not in any event be higher than what the High Court Judges are entitled to; (v) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify its directions as to paying a Domestic Help Allowance of Rs.1250/- p.m. to the retired judicial officers, and clarify that no allowance would be payable to such retired judicial officers which are not payable to serving officers." 2. In respect of prayer (ii) relating to Assured Career Progression Scheme (A.C.P.), the recommendations are contained in Paragraph 17.9 of the Shetty Commission Report. The recommendations stipulate that the conferment of benefit by way of A.C.P. should not be automatic but on the appraisal of their work and performance by a committee of Senior Judges of the High Court constituted for the purpose. It has been further recommended that these financial upgradations should not be provided to those who have declined regular promotion on any personal ground. Nothing is mentioned in the recommendation about the A.C.P. being confined where Judge strength is-maintained at the present level in any district/State/Union Territory. Though Paragraph (3) of the interlocutory application states that the .justification for an A.C.P, is the premise that inadequacy of posts for the superior grade leads to stagnation of the officers but it has not been stated in the application that in any particular district, State or Union Territory because of creation of further number of posts, the element of stagnation is not there. I n fact, the question sought to be raised is only academic. It is implicit that the benefit under the A.C.P. Scheme comes to those who are deprived of promotion. No clarification has been sought for promotion in a specified time schedule despite their performance being judged good for promotion. Under these circumstances, prayer (ii) cannot be granted at this stage. 3. It is implicit that the benefit under the A.C.P. Scheme comes to those who are deprived of promotion. No clarification has been sought for promotion in a specified time schedule despite their performance being judged good for promotion. Under these circumstances, prayer (ii) cannot be granted at this stage. 3. Regarding prayer (iii), the recommendation contained in Paragraph 19.122 is that the judicial officers in every State be given medical benefits that are provided to the members of the State Legislatures, subject to certain modifications mentioned in the recommendation. No factual background has been mentioned in the application as to how the medical facilities provided on the acceptance of the Report of the Shetty Commission would result in providing higher facilities than what the High Court Judges are entitled to. Accordingly, this prayer also deserves to be rejected. 4. Regarding domestic allowance of Rs.1,250 per month to the retired judicial officers, Paragraph 4(c) of the application is based on the premise that the judgment of this Court in All-India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ( 2002 (4) SCC 247 ) does not make the said allowance admissible to the retired judicial officers. The application, however, quotes Paragraph (36) of the Judgment above-referred, which deals with allowance of Rs.2500/- per month to be paid to a judicial officer to enable the engagement of a servant. The said paragraph does not deal with the allowance under this Head to be paid to a retired judicial officer. The relevant recommendation is contained in Paragraph 23.18 (wrongly mentioned as 22.18) which states that a cash payment of Rs.1250/- per month be paid as "Domestic Help Allowance" to every retired judicial officer which would be paid upon producing a certificate to that effect. The decision of this Court has neither modified this recommendation nor rejected it. In fact, Paragraph (37) of All-India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra) accepts the above- noted recommendation for domestic help allowance for a retired judicial officer by holding that "Subject to the various modifications in this judgment, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted". 5. We are told that some of the State Governments in implementation of this recommendation are already giving this allowance to retired judicial officers. (supra) accepts the above- noted recommendation for domestic help allowance for a retired judicial officer by holding that "Subject to the various modifications in this judgment, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted". 5. We are told that some of the State Governments in implementation of this recommendation are already giving this allowance to retired judicial officers. We may, however, clarify that, as noted in Paragraph 15.81 at Page 987, this allowance has been recommended to be given with effect from Ist November, 1999. In this view, prayer (v) is also rejected. 6. In view of the above, while dismissing the interlocutory application, we direct the Union of India, State Governments and Union Territories to implement the recommendations, as afore-noted, and file compliance report in this Court within eight weeks. In I.A. Nos. 145,165 and 171: 7. In view of the order passed in I.A. No. 103, these interlocutory applications are disposed of. In Cont. Pet. (C) No.150/2003 in Writ Petition ((.) No.1022 of 1989: 8. As a result of the aforesaid directions in I.A. No.103, we do not think. it expedient to further examine the contempt petition. It stands disposed of accordingly. In I.A. No. 110: 9. The learned counsel submits that he will file a fresh application giving details. of the weightage given to the direct recruits to the Higher Judicial Service by various States and this application may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file such application. As prayed, the interlocutory application is dismissed as withdrawn. In I.A. Nos. 112-113: 10. None appears for the State of Rajasthan. 11. These applications by the State of Rajasthan set out no particulars. The prayer made cannot be granted, at least, at this stage. We expect the State Government to, at least, make a beginning by creating partially more number of courts. 12. The interlocutory applications are disposed of. In Cont. Pet. (C) No. /2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989: 13. The learned counsel prays that the contempt petition may be dismissed as not pressed. 14. Ordered accordingly. I.A. No. 117: 15. The applicant-State of Nagaland seeks modification ofthe judgment dated 21st March, 2002 in relation to separation of Judiciary from Executive in the State of Nagaland. Pet. (C) No. /2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989: 13. The learned counsel prays that the contempt petition may be dismissed as not pressed. 14. Ordered accordingly. I.A. No. 117: 15. The applicant-State of Nagaland seeks modification ofthe judgment dated 21st March, 2002 in relation to separation of Judiciary from Executive in the State of Nagaland. The State is now examining the matter as is evident from the affidavit of the Resident Commissioner of December, 2005 filed in the case, according to which the matter is to be placed before the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland commencing on 16th December, 2005. Thus it appears that some progress is being made in the direction of separation of Judiciary from Executive. 16. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, we defer the consideration of the application by two months. I.A. No. 119: 17. From the Status Report filed by the State of Meghalaya on 13th September, 2005, it appears that insofar as the officers discharging judicial functions are concerned, the recommendation of Shetty Commission has been implemented. In this view, no further orders on this application are required to be passed at this stage. 18. Regarding separation of Judiciary from Executive which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.4101 of 2002, we direct that the said appeal be listed for hearing, high up on the list, in the month of February, 2006. I.A. No. 128: 19. In terms of orders passed on 25th April, 2005, it was directed that the directions regarding State of Meghalaya on I.A.No.119/ 2002 in the order dated 18th April, 2005 shall apply to the State of Mizoram also in regard to the officers exclusively discharging judicial functions. The affidavit of Additional Secretary, Government of Mizoram, filed on 26th November, 2005, refers to two notifications, one dated 16th June, 2005 and the other dated 25th July, 2005. In order to show the implementation of the recommendations of Shetty Commission in regard to the judicial officers discharging exclusively judicial functions, learned counsel appearing for the State prays for time to file additional affidavit stating whether the recommendations have been accepted qua them from the date the officers are discharging exclusively judicial functions or from some future date. 20. In order to show the implementation of the recommendations of Shetty Commission in regard to the judicial officers discharging exclusively judicial functions, learned counsel appearing for the State prays for time to file additional affidavit stating whether the recommendations have been accepted qua them from the date the officers are discharging exclusively judicial functions or from some future date. 20. The Registrar General of the High Court of Guwahati is directed to file an affidavit stating as to the period since when the officers are discharging judicial functions under the supervision and control of the High Court. 21. The affidavits shall be filed within eight weeks. 22. The application is adjourned. I.A. No. 159: 23. As prayed, the Mizoram Judicial Association is impleaded as party in Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989 and I.A.No.128. The Association may assist this Court in I.A. No. 128. 24. I.A. No. 159 is disposed of accordingly. I.A. No. 130: 25. By order dated 8th August, 2005, after noting that the real issue was not Karnataka model of acceptance but it was implementation of recommendations of Shetty Commission, the State of Kerala was granted time to file affidavit. The affidavit has still not been filed despite nearly four months having been elapsed. 26. As prayed, we grant further four weeks' time to the State of Kerala to file the affidavit. 27. The State Government is further directed to implement the recommendations of Shetty Commission in terms of the decision of this Court in 2002 (4) SCC 247 . I.A. No. 175: 28. The State of Kerala is also directed to file an affidavit in reply to I.A.No.175. We may also note that according to the applicant the recommendations of Shetty Commission, which have not been implemented, are contained in a chart, Annexure-9. The State Government is directed to deal with the sixteen items mentioned in Annexure-9 in the affidavit directed to be filed. 29. The affidavit shall also state whether the recommendations have been accepted with effect from the date in terms of the Shetty Commission Report and the decision of this Court. 30. I.A. No. 175 be listed along with IA. No. 130. I.A. No.166: I.A.No.166 is allowed. I.A. Nos. 167-168: 31. The State of Bihar is directed to issue notification in respect of the Rules within two weeks. 30. I.A. No. 175 be listed along with IA. No. 130. I.A. No.166: I.A.No.166 is allowed. I.A. Nos. 167-168: 31. The State of Bihar is directed to issue notification in respect of the Rules within two weeks. Time is sought on behalf of the State of Bihar as also the High Court to file reply to these applications. The State of Bihar may file the same within two days and the High Court is granted four weeks' time to file the same. Further the High Court, through its Registrar General, shal I intimate respondents 3 to 17 in these 1.As. that their appointment is under challenge in these proceedings. 32. List these applications after filing of the reply by the High Court. I.A. No. 170 & connected I.A.No........for directions: 33. I.A. No. 170 seeking intervention/ impleadment is allowed. 34. The connected application seeking directions for implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission resulted in the order dated 25th April, 2005 being passed by this Court which records the statement made on behalf of the State of Jammu & Kashmir that the State is agreeable to implement all the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission and that substantial compliance has already been made and whatever remains to be done shall be done at the earliest. A brief compliance affidavit dated 14th July, 2005 has been filed by an Under Secretary of the concerned department annexing therewith copy of the notification dated 4th July, 2005 and stating that the order of this Court stands complied 5 with. 35. The learned Amicus Curiae, however, points out that the Shetty Commission recommendations have not been complied with in respect of the following matters: (I) payment of arrears w.e.f. lst October, 2003, (2) notification regarding payment of dearness allowance at the Central Government rates, and (3) notification regarding benefits being granted to pensioners. 36. We direct the State Government to implement the recommendations of Shetty Commission in respect of the aforesaid aspects, if not already implemented, and file compliance report of a senior officer conversant with the facts of this case within six weeks. I.A. No. 173: 37. I.A.No.173 is allowed and the applicant is impleaded as a party. 38. The application seeking directions (regarding format of recording of ACR) shall be numbered. The learned Amicus Curiae may look into it and assist the Court. I.A. No. 176: 39. I.A. No. 173: 37. I.A.No.173 is allowed and the applicant is impleaded as a party. 38. The application seeking directions (regarding format of recording of ACR) shall be numbered. The learned Amicus Curiae may look into it and assist the Court. I.A. No. 176: 39. The application is allowed and the applicant is impleaded as a party. 40. The application seeking directions may be numbered. 41. Permission is granted to file additional affidavit placing on record the recommendations which have not been implemented qua the applicant. 42. Issue notice on the application to the State of Tripura. Notice be also served on the standing counsel. I.A. No. 71A and 142. 43. On 4th April 2005, this Court passed the following order: "Most of the States/UTs have not filed their response to the applications in spite of enough time having been allowed for the purpose. A last opportunity of four weeks is allowed for filing the responses in terms of order dated 17.01.2005 and in the light of the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission failing which it shall be assumed that such of the States/ UTs who do not file response have nothing to say in opposition to the prayer made in the application." 44. It seems that despite the aforesaid order, many of the States/UTs have not filed responses. The order dated 17th January, 2005, referred to in the aforesaid order of 4th April, 2005, reads as under: "Only the State of Punjab has filed a response reporting partial compliance. Let all the States file their responses reporting full compliance within a period of eight weeks. We would like to point out that earlier on 8.4.2004 and 19.7.2004 directions in this regard were already made and, therefore, we expect full compliance reports being filed positively within this much time." 45. We direct all the States/UTs through their standing counsel to file, within six weeks, the present status report placing on record as to what has been implemented and what not. 46. The applications are adjourned. Contempt Petition (C) No.151 of 2003: 47. None is present for the petitioner. 48. The prayer is to initiate contempt proceedings for wilful, intentional and deliberate disobedience to the orders and directions of this Court and the affidavit of compliance dated 8th March, 1999 filed in Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989. 46. The applications are adjourned. Contempt Petition (C) No.151 of 2003: 47. None is present for the petitioner. 48. The prayer is to initiate contempt proceedings for wilful, intentional and deliberate disobedience to the orders and directions of this Court and the affidavit of compliance dated 8th March, 1999 filed in Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989. We do not think that any case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings. 49. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a substantive interlocutory application for redressal of grievance, if any. 50. This Court in 2002 (4) SCC 247 accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission subject to various modifications incorporated in the judgment. Para 37 thereof reads as under: "37. Subject to the various modifications in this judgment, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted." 51. In terms of para 39 of the. Judgment, the States as well as the Union of India were directed to submit compliance report by 30th September, 2002. The matter has been taken up on various dates thereafter on it being pointed out that either there is no compliance or only partial compliance. Such of the States/ UTs and Union of India which have not complied with the Shetty Commission Report and have not released all the allowances and benefits enumerated in Chapter 19 of that Report with effect from 1st November, 1999 in terms of thejudgment of this Court in 2002 (4) SCC 247 are directed to immediately release all allowances and benefits. 52. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretaries of al I the State Government/ UTs. and to the Registrars of the High Courts. In I.A. Nos.152, 139 and 157: 53. Notice on I.A. No.152 shall issue to the respondent-Registrar General of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. I.A. Nos. 139 and 157 will be heard along with I.A. No.1 52. In I.A. No.1 in LA. No.152: 54. No orders. In I.A. Nos. 141 and 172: 55. Direction is sought in terms of prayer (i) to the Government of Gujarat to make the Shetty Commission Report applicable to all retirees irrespective of their date of retirement (either before 1st January, 1996 or thereafter) and allow all other allowances payable to them. In I.A. No.1 in LA. No.152: 54. No orders. In I.A. Nos. 141 and 172: 55. Direction is sought in terms of prayer (i) to the Government of Gujarat to make the Shetty Commission Report applicable to all retirees irrespective of their date of retirement (either before 1st January, 1996 or thereafter) and allow all other allowances payable to them. The learned counsel for the State Government submits that a decision has been taken to grant this relief to all the retirees. Let an affidavit to that effect be filed within two weeks. 56. For the remaining prayer in regard to the placement of Assistant Judge in the cadre of District Judge, similar question has also been raised in I.A. No.172. Issue notice to the respondents in the interlocutory applications. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel accepts notice. Reply be filed within four weeks. In reply, the respondent shall state as to whether the appointment of Assistant Judges was made by the Governor or the High Court as also about the process of selection. In I.A. No.160: 57. Although the prayer is for clarification and modification of Paragraph (31) of All- India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra), in fact, it seeks review of that order. The prayer for treating Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at par with District Judges has already been rejected in Paragraph (31) thereof. We see no ground to re-open the issue. Since other prayers in the application have already been granted, the interlocutory application is disposed of. In I.A. Nos.146 and 147: 58. In view of the affidavit dated 28th April, 2005 filed on behalf of the State of Orissa, the interlocutory applications call for no further consideration. They are, accordingly, disposed of. I.A. No.154: 59. Documents filed along with the affidavit are taken on record. 60. The interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. In I.A. Nos.161 and 169: 61. Copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Retired Judges' Association, West Bengal, shall be given to Mr. G.S. Chatterjee, learned counsel representing the High Court. As prayed, the learned counsel for the Nigh Court is granted three weeks' time to file reply to I.A. No.169. The High Court is also given liberty to file reply to I.A. No.161 as well. In I.A. No.169, rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. 62. I.A. No. 161 will be taken along with I.A. No. 169. The High Court is also given liberty to file reply to I.A. No.161 as well. In I.A. No.169, rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. 62. I.A. No. 161 will be taken along with I.A. No. 169. Rest of the matters: 63. Adjourned.