Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2005 DIGILAW 98 (SC)

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA

2005-01-17

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

body2005
ORDER 1. Vide para 18.14, the Shetty Commission has recommended- Same DA formula as is being implemented at present to the Central Government employees be followed in the case of judicial officers in every State/UT." 2. The States of Tripura and Goa have complied with the recommendation, though belatedly. 3. The State of Tamil Nadu has filed an affidavit on 14-10-2004 stating that the instalments for the years 2002 and 2003 are still in arrears and could not be paid because of the financial crunch in the State. After hearing the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, we allow time till 30-6-2005 and hope that the compliance shall be reported within this much time. 4. The State of Kerala has filed an affidavit dated 11-1-2005 stating that because of financial stringency in the State it has not been able to comply with the recommendation. Inasmuch as all other States/UTs have implemented the recommendation, we expect the State of Kerala also to adopt a positive approach, accept the recommendation and report compliance within a reasonable time, latest by 30-6-2005. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 20-9-2004, on behalf of the State of Gujarat, an affidavit dated 1-12-2004 has been filed in which the State has reiterated its stand taken by it earlier also. The learned amicus curiae submits that the stand taken in the affidavit in regard to the District Judges is not in accordance with the recommendation made by the Shetty Commission. The learned counsel for the State of Gujarat seeks time for having instructions and re-examining the stand taken by the State of Gujarat in the light of Article 236(a) of the Constitution and the recommendation made in para 15.38. Let it be done in eight weeks. Release of pension/past pension, recommendation contained in Chapters 22 and 23 of the Shetty Commission Report 6. The learned counsel for the State of Goa states that decision has c already been taken to release benefits in accordance with the recommendation made by Shetty Commission in regard to pension/past pension. The affidavit to that effect, for being filed in the Court, is in the course of transmission and will be shortly filed. She also states that the necessary orders are also in the process of being issued. Let the compliance affidavit be filed within four weeks. 7. The affidavit to that effect, for being filed in the Court, is in the course of transmission and will be shortly filed. She also states that the necessary orders are also in the process of being issued. Let the compliance affidavit be filed within four weeks. 7. On behalf of the States of Kerala and Gujarat compliance affidavits are yet to be filed. We make it clear that the recommendation has to be complied with and the learned counsel for the two States pray for a reasonable time being allowed for compliance and reporting the same. Let it be done within eight weeks. 8. Learned counsel for the State of Arunachal Pradesh states that a ( high-power committee was appointed by the State which has taken a decision that at present it is considered not advisable to separate the judiciary from the executive and that decision needs to be placed on record. Let it be done within eight weeks under copy to the learned amicus curiae whereafter we would like to hear the learned amicus and the learned counsel for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and then pass appropriate orders. 9. On behalf of the State of Nagaland it is stated that a high-power committee is examining the question of separation of judiciary from the executive but a final decision has not been taken as yet. Let the decision be awaited and be brought on record as soon as taken but not later than in eight weeks. IA No. 128 of 2003 (on behalf of the State of Mizoram) 10. The learned amicus curiae points out that at one point of time notifications were issued by the State Government for the purpose of separating the judiciary from the executive but those notifications were later withdrawn vide notification dated 1-4-2004. The learned counsel for the State. of Mizoram points out that the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court has vide notification dated 23-1-2003 appointed a committee to study the subject' "Separation of Judiciary from the Executive" in the State of Mizoram and that committee is examining the question and report is awaited. We postpone the directions in this regard awaiting the report of the committee. However, we expect the committee to conclude its study and make its report, as far as possible, within eight weeks. IA No. 119 of 2002 (on behalf of the State of Meghalaya) 11. We postpone the directions in this regard awaiting the report of the committee. However, we expect the committee to conclude its study and make its report, as far as possible, within eight weeks. IA No. 119 of 2002 (on behalf of the State of Meghalaya) 11. The learned counsel for the State of Meghalaya points out that by order dated 6-3-2002 passed in WP (PIL) No. 4952 of 2001, the High Court of Gauhati, Bench at Shillong passed orders directing separation of judiciary from the executive within a period of three months from the date of the order. As against the judgment, an appeal by special leave has been filed in this Court, registered as CA No. 4101 of 2002 wherein vide order dated 15-7-2002 this Court directed the order of the High Court to remain stayed. But subsequently that order has been modified. We think it appropriate to take up that appeal itself for consideration along with this writ petition. Let CA No. 4101 of 2002 be placed for hearing analogously with this petition. In the meantime, inasmuch as there is no order of stay operating against the judgment of the High Court, we direct the State Government of Meghalaya to go ahead with the implementation of the direction made by the High Court and file a status report within eight weeks. NCT of Delhi 12. The learned counsel for NCT of Delhi states that NCT of Delhi being not a full-fledged State and financial powers being available only with the Government of India, NCT of Delhi has moved the Government of India for granting necessary financial approval. He further states that correspondence between NCT of Delhi and the Government of India is going on. Mr D.S. Mahra, the learned counsel for the Union of India states that a decision in regard to the approval is yet to be taken. 13. The granting of approval, in our opinion, appears a matter of formality only inasmuch as a similar approval has been granted by the Government of India as regards the UT of Pondicherry. We direct the Union of India to take that decision and communicate the same to NCT of Delhi and also bring it on the record of this case within eight weeks. 14. The States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have fully complied with the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission. 15. We direct the Union of India to take that decision and communicate the same to NCT of Delhi and also bring it on the record of this case within eight weeks. 14. The States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have fully complied with the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission. 15. On behalf of the State of Sikkim, IA No. 156 of 2004 has been filed submitting that the amended Rules have been framed consistently with the Shetty Commission Report and sent to the High Court for approval. On behalf of the States of Haryana and Andhra Pradesh affidavits dated 10-1-2005 and 6-1-2005 respectively have been filed wherein it is stated that decisions have been taken consistently with the Shetty Commission Report and the recommendations have been complied with substantially and only minor things remain to be taken care of. 16. We make it clear that all the State Governments and Union Territories who have yet not complied with the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission may do so now within a period of eight weeks adopting the Karnataka Scheme of Pension to judicial officers as a model but without in any manner modifying the same. If the State Rules need to be amended for the purpose, that shall also be done within twelve weeks. 17. The learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir seeks further time for filing compliance report in terms of the order dated 20-9-2004. Let it be now done within eight weeks positively. 18. As regards the State of Assam the stand taken in their affidavit filed on 16-9-2004 is that the State Government is contemplating to retain the revised formula recommended by Assam Pay Commission, 1994. The learned amicus curiae points out that that formula is inconsistent with the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission. After hearing the learned counsel for the State of Assam, we clarify that the recommendation made by a the Shetty Commission insofar as the judicial officers are concerned have to be carried out and the pension structure as prevailing in the State and the Rules in regard thereto must be modified, if necessary and brought in conformity with the Shetty Commission Report. 19. 19. Before parting, we make it clear that the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission have to be complied with in letter and spirit in regard t to pay scales, arrears, pension including past pension without regard to the financial constraints and without regard to stand taken by any of the States or UTs in their affidavits or applications separately filed. Such compliance after taking necessary decisions at the level of the respective State Governments and UTs must be reported to this Court within the time-frame, as stated hereinabove. 20. We further make it clear that we expect all the States and UTs to come out with definite and positive response reporting compliance with the orders of this Court within the time schedule as appointed hereinabove. Non-compliance will be viewed seriously and we may be compelled to direct the personal appearance of the Chief Secretary or the Secretary concerned for the purpose of securing compliance with the orders passed by this Court. IA No. 152 of 2004 (filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh) 21. The learned counsel for the State of A.P. states that the recommendations of the Shetty Commission Report are being implemented consistently with the decision taken in consultation with the High Court. However, some clarification is required for which the High Court has made a / reference to the Accountant General of the State. Let the result of such reference be awaited and brought to the notice of this Court within eight weeks. 22. The learned amicus curiae has brought to our notice the contents of GOMs No. 113 dated 1-11-2004, in particular para 9 thereof. It is submitted that the contents of para 9 are inconsistent with the Shetty Commission Report. Let the learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh seek' instructions in this regard and submit explanation to the Court. IA No. 71-A (filed on behalf of All India Judicial Employees Confederation and treated as substantive application) and IA No. 142 of 2003 (for directions) 23. Let all the States and UTs who have not filed their response in regard to compliance with the Shetty Commission recommendations file the same within eight weeks. 24. The hearing of these applications is separated from the other matters. 25. Let all the States and UTs who have not filed their response in regard to compliance with the Shetty Commission recommendations file the same within eight weeks. 24. The hearing of these applications is separated from the other matters. 25. Office shall place the said applications and the responses filed in separate folders and list the same for hearing on a date appointed specifically for hearing in these applications. CWP No. 173 of 2004 (for Small Cause Court Judges of Gujarat), IA No. 143 of 2003 and IA No.... of 2003 (regarding Chief Judges of Small Cause Courts, Ahmedabad) and IA No. 126 of 2003 (for directions regarding Small Cause Court Judges of Bombay) 26. To be listed for hearing separately from other matters on a non-miscellaneous day after eight weeks.