Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2005 DIGILAW 840 (SC)

All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India

2005-04-18

N.S.HEGDE, R.C.LAHOTI, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2005
ORDER Re: Para 18.14, p. 1018, Vol. 111 of Justice Shetty Commission Report 1. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu states that the State has accepted the recommendation on principle and has taken steps in the direction of implementation. Part-compliance has already been made. An affidavit in that regard will be filed within two weeks. 2. On behalf of the State of Kerala, an affidavit is proposed to be filed during the course of the day. It is submitted that the State of Kerala is finding it difficult to implement the recommendation in view of the financial crunch. 3. We have already made it clear and we do it once again that financial crunch cannot be a ground for non-compliance. We hope that the compliance will be made on or before 30-6-2005, the time already allowed for the purpose. Re: Primary pay scales 4. The stand taken by the State of Gujarat is that an Assistant Sessions Judge does not form part of the cadre of District Judges. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Valjibhai H. Patel v. S.N. Sundaram1. We would like to hear the learned counsel for the State of Gujarat as also the learned amicus curiae and record a specific finding on this issue. In that context, the report of the Committee of Judges of the Gujarat High Court may also need to be examined. The learned counsel for the State of Gujarat assures to file a copy of that report within two weeks. The hearing is postponed. Re: Recommendations for pensioners/past pensioners contained in Chapters 22 and 23 of Justice Shetly Commission Report 5. The State of Goa has filed an affidavit dated 12-2-2005 stating that the State Government has made full compliance with the directions made by this Court. 6. The State of Kerala has not filed any compliance affidavit. On behalf of the State of Kerala, an affidavit is being filed during the course of the day. The learned counsel for the State orally states that the affidavit does not contain a statement as to compliance but sets out reasons for non-compliance. We have already made it clear, and we reiterate, that it is only compliance which has to be reported and that we expect it to be done before the matter is taken up for hearing next. 7. We have already made it clear, and we reiterate, that it is only compliance which has to be reported and that we expect it to be done before the matter is taken up for hearing next. 7. On behalf of the State of Gujarat, an affidavit has been filed on 4-4-2005. On (a) age of superannuation, and (b) qualifying service, the State Government has accepted the recommendations made by Justice Shetty Commission. On other points i.e. (c) pensionable pay, (d) commutation of pension, (e) maximum pension limit, (j) DCRG and family pension, and (g) medical allowance, though a statement of compliance has been made, but we find that the decision taken by the State Government is not in complete conformity with, but is rather at variance from the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission and the Karnataka model which has been accepted by all other States and Union Territories. We direct the State of Gujarat to bring compliance in conformity with Justice Shetty Commission Report and the Karnataka model and report the same before the next date of hearing. Re: State of Arunachal Pradesh 8. The learned amicus curiae has invited our attention to the Report dated 19-9-1984 by the Committee to study the judicial system in the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh. The Committee itself recommended that the Government should take immediate steps to have a limited separation of judiciary from the executive. The action to be taken in the direction of such limited separation was also indicated. More than 20 years have passed since the date the Committee submitted its Report. We would like the Chief Secretary of the State to make statement-on-affidavit as to what steps have been taken in the direction of the implementation of the Report of the Committee as abovesaid. Let this be done in eight weeks. Re: State of Nagaland 9. The high-power committee constituted on 12-7-2004 has become now functional and all the members and the Member-Secretary are in place. The State Government shall render all its assistance so as to enable the Committee functioning fully and submitting its report before the end of October 2005. Re: IA No. 128 of 2003 by the State of Mizoram 10. The high-power committee constituted on 12-7-2004 has become now functional and all the members and the Member-Secretary are in place. The State Government shall render all its assistance so as to enable the Committee functioning fully and submitting its report before the end of October 2005. Re: IA No. 128 of 2003 by the State of Mizoram 10. It is stated on behalf of the Government of Mizoram that the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 21-2-2005 has taken a final decision to separate judiciary from the executive in the State of Mizoram excluding the autonomous District Council areas. However, a notification in that regard is yet to be issued. It is stated that the draft notification is pending with the High Court for its approval. On the other hand, the Mizoram Judicial Service Rules, 2002 framed by the Gauhati High Court are pending for consideration of the State Government. IA No. 159 of 2005 has been filed by Mizoram Judicial Service Association wherein it has been submitted that the delay is on the part of the State Government on account of which the implementation is being delayed. We direct the State Government to file its response to IA No. 159 of 2005 within eight weeks and this IA shall be taken up for consideration with IA No. 128 of 2003. 11. The learned counsel for the Gauhati High Court may also have instructions from the High Court and place the current status on record in writing. Re: IA No. 119 of 2002 by the State of Meghalaya 12. The learned amicus curiae submits and it is conceded by the learned counsel for the State of Meghalaya as also by the learned counsel for the• Gauhati High Court that in order to resolve the dispute insofar as the State of Meghalaya is concerned, CA No. 4101 of 2002 deserves to be heard and' decided. Let that appeal be separated from the hearing in this matter and put up in the third week of July, 2005 in Court No. 1 for directions in the matter of appointing a date of hearing. 13. Let that appeal be separated from the hearing in this matter and put up in the third week of July, 2005 in Court No. 1 for directions in the matter of appointing a date of hearing. 13. To the extent of the District and Sessions Judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Assistant District and Sessions Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munsif and other Judicial Magistrates who are mentioned in para 21 of IA No. 119 of 2002 and such other officers who are discharging judicial functions, the benefit of the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission shall be extended. The State of Meghalaya shall take a formal decision in that regard within eight weeks and place the same on the record of this Court. 14. There is no appearance on behalf of the Union of India. The learned counsel for the State of Meghalaya assures to make a complete set of papers available to the learned Solicitor General and inform him the next date of hearing so that the learned Solicitor General may appear duly instructed by the Union of India in that regard. 15. The latest status report in regard to separation of judiciary from the executive in the State of Meghalaya may also be filed in eight weeks in this IA as also in CA No. 4101 of 2002. 16. For further hearing, list on 25-4-2005.