JUDGMENT : The order dated 7th February, 2006, required the State Governments/Union Territories to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission in respect of the aspects mentioned therein within eight weeks and file compliance report in the form of affidavits of the Chief Secretaries failing which it was indicated that personal appearance of the Chief Secretaries and/or Secretary, Union of India, may be directed. 2. In respect of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, at present, the question of compliance does not arise since no judicial cadre exists in desirable that now, without any further delay, the separation, as aforesaid, takes place in the four States at the earliest and implemented. 3. We request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to take up this matter at the highest level so that the separation comes into effect without any further delay and preferably before the courts in those States close for Puja vacations. The State Governments and all their functionaries are directed to fully cooperate with Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 4. Copy of this order shall be sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and to the Hon'ble Chief Ministers of all the four States. 5. List the matter in the month of November, 2006, for compliance. 6. Despite the afore-noticed order dated 7th February, 2006, the compliance affidavits have not been filed by as many as twelve States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Orissa, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and Uttaranchal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh state that the Shetty Commission Report in respect of the aforesaid three matters have been implemented and compliance affidavit will be filed during the course of the day. The state of affairs existing in these States is most unfortunate. The compliance report was required to be filed within eight weeks, which expired in April, 2006, and now, we are in July, 2006. Instead of directing the personal appearance of the Chief Secretaries of these twelve States, for the present, we direct Chief Secretaries to personally ensure compliance of the directions dated 7th February, 2006. It will be the personal responsibility of each of the Chief Secretaries not only to ensure compliance but to file affidavits reporting compliance on or before 31st August, 2006. In re: ASSAM: 8. It will be the personal responsibility of each of the Chief Secretaries not only to ensure compliance but to file affidavits reporting compliance on or before 31st August, 2006. In re: ASSAM: 8. An affidavit of compliance dated 13th July, 2006, has been filed by the Chief Secretary of the State. It has been pointed out by Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned amicus curiae, that compliance in respect of Rent- free accommodation, House Rent Allowance and medical facilities is not in terms of the Shetty Commission Report and the directions of this Court. The Chief Secretary shall personally ensure that the compliance is in terms of the Shetty Commission Report and the directions of this Court and file an affidavit by 31st August, 2006. The aspect of allowances pertaining to water/electricity charges, Conveyance and Transfer Grant stated to be pending with the State Government would also be finalised by the State Government. The non-compliance is said to be as under: (i) Rent free accommodation and H.R.A. (House Rent Allowance) being given as per State Rules (details not given) and not as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendation and paragraph 35 of the judgment in All-India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ( 2002 (4) SCC 247 ) at page 273; (ii) Medical facilities allowed as per State Rules and not as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendation which should be at par with State M.L.As. - both for serving as well as retired officers. [para 19.111 at page 150, Volume III]; and (iii) The allowances pertaining to water/ electricity charges, conveyance and Transfer Grants are reportedly still being examined by the State Government as per paragraph (4) (page 2) of the affidavit. 9. Like-wise, with reference to affidavits filed by the State Governments, learned amicus curiae has pointed out State-wise various short-comings and non-compliance as also some aspects which need a clear affidavit that what is provided is in accord with the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, as accepted by this Court in A11-India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ( 2002 (4) SCC 247 ). We may note that in paragraph (37) of A11-India Judges' Association & Ors. (.supra), this Court directed that subject to the various modifications in the judgments, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted. This direction is required to be kept in view by the State Governments. v. Union of India & Ors. ( 2002 (4) SCC 247 ). We may note that in paragraph (37) of A11-India Judges' Association & Ors. (.supra), this Court directed that subject to the various modifications in the judgments, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted. This direction is required to be kept in view by the State Governments. The State-wise non- compliance/short-comings pointed out are as under: 1. BIHAR: [i] Medical facilities made admissible as per State Government employees and not as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendations at para 19.122, page 1059, volume 111. [ii] Domestic Help Allowance to retirees not sanctioned. [iii] Water and Electricity Allowance not mentioned in the affidavit. [iv] Conveyance Allowance not made available as per recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission as laid down at paragraph 19.69, pages 1042-1044, Volume I11. [v] Sumptuary Allowance - "not sanctioned". [vi] H.T.C./L.T.C. - L.T.C. made admissible as per State employees and not as recommended while H.T.C. not allowed, as it is not admissible to other State Government employees. [vii] Concurrent Charge Allowance - "not sanctioned". [viii] Leave encashment allowance not allowed because it is not admissible to any other State employee. [ix] Transfer Grant allowed as per State employees and not as recommended. [x] Rent free accommodation facility not provided as directed and recommended. Instead facility sanctioned as per an old order dated 1.11.1995. 2. GOA: i. The benefit of medical facilities allowed to serving judicial officers not specifically extended also to the retirees, as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendations. Moreover, this facility has been allowed as per State Rules and not on the pattern,of the members of the State Legislative Assembly (M.L.As.) as recommended and ordered by many other States. 3. GUJARAT: [i] Notification dated 9.5.2005 allowed all allowances with effect from 1.4.2005 instead of 1.11.1999 as directed by this Court as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendations. [ii] Unjustified lower limits fixed to allowance of 50% reimbursement for water/electricity charges plus newspaper/magazine allowance. [iii] Rent free accommodation given but alternative not as per Justice Shetty recommendations. [iv] Justice Shetty recommended sumptuary allowance and leave encashment, tax free - no such mention in notification though the States of Mizoram, Goa and Meghalaya have made leave encashment tax free while Sikkim has gone a step further and declared both allowances as tax free. [iii] Rent free accommodation given but alternative not as per Justice Shetty recommendations. [iv] Justice Shetty recommended sumptuary allowance and leave encashment, tax free - no such mention in notification though the States of Mizoram, Goa and Meghalaya have made leave encashment tax free while Sikkim has gone a step further and declared both allowances as tax free. [v] No order of additional benefit for higher qualification of Judges (Post- graduation/LL.M./Ph.D. etc.) as per para 8.48, page 590, Volume II). [vi] Conveyance allowance (Para 19.69): So far Taluka Court Judges are concerned this facility is not extended in Gujarat. [vii] Medical facilities - (Para 19.122) and (19.125): List of private hospitals at Districts and Talukas for all types of treatments are not yet notified. The notification issued by the Government refers for the particular treatment qua the hospital. [viii] As recommended in para 19.183 to provided furniture in quarter, no notification is issued. 4. HARYANA [i] Medical facilities to the judicial officers "becomes almost at par with the M.L.As., as explained above. However, for giving medical facilities in the State of Haryana exactly at par with the M.L.As., the matter is under active consideration of the State Government". [ii] The matter of Domestic Help Allowance to the retirees "is also under active process". [iii] "As regards grant of various allowances/facilities allowed by Justice Shetty Commission, the matter is under active consideration of the Government". 5. KERALA [i] Fifty per cent of water and electricity allowance - a ceiling of Rs. 350/- per month fixed (Page 4). [ii] Allowances/perks released with prospective effect and not with effect from 1.11.1999 as ordered (Pages 5, 6 and 8). [iii] Conveyance Allowance fixed, if pool car facility is not availed as follows: Rs. 800/- for 4-wheelers, Rs. 200/- for 2-wheelers and Rs. 350/- to officers who do not own any vehicle. NOTE: Justice Shetty Commission recommendation is for petrol 75/50 litres for 4-wheelers and 25 litres for 2- wheelers. [iv] No report about medical facilities to serving/retired officers. [v] No report about pensioners in general including the Domestic Help Allowance of Rs.1250/- per month with effect from 1.11.1999. 6. MAHARASHTRA: 10. The affidavit purports to report compliance through a decision dated 24.5.2006 of the State. Government. [iv] No report about medical facilities to serving/retired officers. [v] No report about pensioners in general including the Domestic Help Allowance of Rs.1250/- per month with effect from 1.11.1999. 6. MAHARASHTRA: 10. The affidavit purports to report compliance through a decision dated 24.5.2006 of the State. Government. However, the required Government Orders/ Notifications have not been issued because of an innovative excuse that the same are awaiting the sanctioning of the relevant financial grants by the Legislative Assembly of the State which is due to convene in the month of July, 2006. The affidavit, at paragraph (3) reads: "....the Government of Maharashtra has taken a decision on 24.5.2005 to pay the charges on account of electricity, water and sumptuary allowance, medical allowance to judicial officers with effect from 1st November, 1999. However, the Government Resolution to that effect will be issued after the grants are sanctioned by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in its Monsoon Session commencing in the month of July, 2006". 7. MANIPUR: [i] Medical facilities released as per Central Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1994 and not as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendations - at part with State M.L.As. [ii] Only pool car facility mentioned. No order as to individual officers owning- 4-wheelers and 2-wheelers and opting out of pool car facility. [iii] No order for Leave encashment as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendation - encashment of leave not exceeding one month in a block period of every two years with effect from 1.11.1999 - and tax free. [iv] Rent free residential accommodation not ordered as per direction of this Court (at pars 35 of All-India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra). [v] An arbitrary cap of free calls on Telephone facility contrary to the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission (Page 1099, volume III). [vi] Domestic Help Allowance to retirees not ordered and rather matter left to the High Court without any justification. [vii] No report about the release of sumptuary allowance and fifty per cent reimbursement of water and electricity charges, as per recommendations. 8. MEGHALAYA: 11. In respect of Assured Career Progression Scheme, the State Government has placed on record a communication dated 31st March, 2006, addressed by it to the Registrar General of the High Court and it is stated that the Government is awaiting the directions of the High Court. The High Court is requested to look into the matter and expedite the decision. In respect of Assured Career Progression Scheme, the State Government has placed on record a communication dated 31st March, 2006, addressed by it to the Registrar General of the High Court and it is stated that the Government is awaiting the directions of the High Court. The High Court is requested to look into the matter and expedite the decision. Regarding medical facilities and Domestic Help Allowance from the notifications issued from time to time, including the notification dated 18th July, 2005, placed on record, it does appear that there is implementation of these directions insofar as serving officers are concerned. It is, however, not clear whether in , terms of Shetty Commission recommendations, as accepted by this Court, these facilities are being provided to the retirees and pensioners or not. Learned counsel also submits that medical facilities and Domestic Help Allowance are being provided to the retired judicial officers. Be that as it may, affidavit may be filed on these issues by the Chief Secretary. [i] Para 6 mentions release of new pay scales to the offices as per Meghalaya Judicial Services (Revision of Pay) rules, 2005. At the moment, we are not discussing pay scales but the relevant Annexure A-3 at Page 71 (item 14) mentions the retirement age at 58 years which obviously is contrary to the specific directions of this Court. [ii] Newspaper/magazine allowance - non-compliance because it is restricted to District Judges alone at page 4, para 6(e) of the main affidavit while the subsequent affidavit merely mentions allowance as admissible to the State Government Officers. [iii] No details of telephone facility to officers given at para 6(j) of the main affidavit or item (II) of the subsequent affidavit. 9. MIZORAM: [i] Conveyance allowance for cars scaled down to 45 litres instead of 50 litres as recommended. [ii] Rent free residential accommodation mentioned at relevant para 12 of the Notification subject to payment of licence free as per State Rules is a non-compliance of a direction of this Court in All-India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra) at page 275, para 35. 10. PUNJAB: [i] The letter of the Government has failed to indicate that the medical facilities are applicable both to the serving as well as retired officers, as per the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission. [ii] The said document did not mention that the allowance of Rs. (supra) at page 275, para 35. 10. PUNJAB: [i] The letter of the Government has failed to indicate that the medical facilities are applicable both to the serving as well as retired officers, as per the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission. [ii] The said document did not mention that the allowance of Rs. 1250/- per month (Domestic Help Allowance for retirees) is to be released with effect from 1.11.1999 as per a specific direction of this Court based on the relevant recommendation of the Commission. [iii] The State Government has not so far issued the required Notifications relating to pensioners/past pensioners regarding recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission in this regard. [iv] Nether of the above-mentioned communications from the State Government to the High Court made reference to a specific recommendation of the Commission made at pars 15.81, page 987 of Volume III to the effect that the benefit of all the allowances must accrue with effect from 1.11.1999 - a fact noticed by this Court at page 10 of the order dated 6.12.2005 tinder discussion and again specified at page 13 thereof. 11. RAJASTHAN: [i] The reimbursement of house rent not ordered as per directions of this Court at para 35 in All-India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra): "If, however, the Government for any reason is unable, to make allotment or make available official accommodation, then in that event the Judicial Officer would be entitled to get house rent allowance similar to that which has been existing or as directed by the Shetty Commission, whichever is higher". [ii] It is further pointed out that arrears of salary in terms of the recommendations of Shetty Commission have not been paid to the judicial officers. This grievance is also the subject matter of Contempt Petition (C) No.141 of 2003. Be that as it may, the arrears in terms of the recommendations, as accepted by this Court, have to be paid by the State Government. 12. SIKKIM: [i] No separate provision has been made for conveyance allowance to officers owning 4-wheelers and 2- wheelers as recommended. [ii] The benefit of medical facilities in question does not appear to have been extended to retired officers. [iii] The facility of rent free residential accommodation has not been provided for in the relevant facility mentioned at Rule No.16 of Annexure R-2. That Rule, therefore, requires some amendment. 13. [ii] The benefit of medical facilities in question does not appear to have been extended to retired officers. [iii] The facility of rent free residential accommodation has not been provided for in the relevant facility mentioned at Rule No.16 of Annexure R-2. That Rule, therefore, requires some amendment. 13. TRIPURA: [i] Domestic Help Allowance of Rs.1250/- per month has been released with effect from' 1.2.2006 instead of with effect from 1.11.1999 as directed. [ii] The medical facilities mentioned at paragraph (5) of the affidavit and in Annexure R-1/1 for serving officers should have been extended to retirees too. 14. UTTAR PRADESH: [i] The alternative facility to rent free accommodation is not as per direction of this Court in relevant para 35 of All-India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra). Instead the order of the Government provides: "In case the Government residence is not allotted, the concerned officer will be paid those (?) rent according to the relevant orders." [ii] The facility of encashment of Leave/ Leave Salary has been allowed with effect from 21.3.2002 and not with effect from 1.1 1.1999, as directed. [iii] The relevant para 12 of Annexure A-1 does not allow medical facilities in accordance with the recommendation - at par with State M.L.As. Nor has the relevant facility been allowed also to the retirees as per recommendation. [iv] No notification has been produced so far regarding pensioners/past pensioners as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendations. Moreover, it has not been shown that the recommended Domestic Help Allowance @ Rs.1250/- per month has been released with effect from 1.1 1.1999 in favour of the retired judicial officers. 15. WEST BENGAL: [i] Fifty per cent reimbursement of water/ electricity charges has been declined by the State Government on the excuse that such a facility does not exist in the State even for a Chief Secretary or Members of the Public Service Commission. [ii] Justice Shetty Commission recommended C.C.A. (City Compensatory Allowance) at the rates payable to State Government employees. The Government of West Bengal has declined the benefit of CCA to the judicial officers on the plea that no such allowance is being paid to any other State employee. [iii] Sumptuary Allowance has been declined again on the plea that even the Chief Secretary or Members of the Public Service Commission in West Bengal are not entitled to it. The Government of West Bengal has declined the benefit of CCA to the judicial officers on the plea that no such allowance is being paid to any other State employee. [iii] Sumptuary Allowance has been declined again on the plea that even the Chief Secretary or Members of the Public Service Commission in West Bengal are not entitled to it. [iv] Concurrent Charge Allowance should be made payable as per Shetty Commission recommendation instead of one contained in Annexure R-7 for State employees. [v] Encashment of Leave and Leave Salary has been declined on the plea that it is not available to any other All India Service Officers for serving in the State. [vi] Again, the State Government has shown disinclination to extend benefit- of rent free residential accommodation to judicial officers as directed by this Court in para 35 of All-India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra). No worthwhile explanation has been put forward at the relevant paragraph (16) of the affidavit and Exhibit R.8. [vii] Telephone facilities are not being provided by the State Government strictly in accordance with the recommendations at pages 1098- 1099, Volume III of the Report. The non-compliance is again without any plausible explanation. 12. It is made clear that the factum of other officers of the State Government are not getting any facility or allowance or that the State has some financial constraints are not relevant for implementation and compliance of the directions of this Court. In respect of financial constraints, over the years, we have already given enough indulgence to the State Governments. 13. Few other aspects also deserve to be noted. 14. In terms of paragraphs 19.146 and 19.147, the High Courts were requested to evolve a principle of paying `special pay' to such of those judicial officers who have considerable administrative work outside the court hours. It appears that most of the High Courts have not evolved this principle. We request the High Courts to look into the matter and evolve the necessary principle keeping in view the recommendations in these two paragraphs. 15. Further, we find that, in some of the States, the judicial officers are being paid specified water and electricity charges while, in other States, the reimbursement is on the basis of the units instead of specified amounts, the main reason being that the charges continue to fluctuate from time to time. 16. 15. Further, we find that, in some of the States, the judicial officers are being paid specified water and electricity charges while, in other States, the reimbursement is on the basis of the units instead of specified amounts, the main reason being that the charges continue to fluctuate from time to time. 16. Paragraphs 15.80 and 15.81 of the Shetty Commission Report make it clear that actual monetary benefit in respect of Dearness Allowance is to be given with effect from 1st July. 1996, and in respect of benefit of other allowances, it is required to be given with effect from Ist November, 1999. Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the affidavit of the State of Kerala show that the aforesaid recommendation has not been fully implemented. 17. In Paragraph 19.172, the Shetty Commission recommends that encashment of leave be made tax free. The Central Government is directed to consider issuing appropriate orders/exemption, the recommendation having been accepted by this Court in paragraph (37) of All-India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra). 18. For the benefit of other States, we may only note that in the State of Rajasthan, the District Judges/Additional District Judges are given 333 units of electricity per month and Chief Judicial Magistrates/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates, 250 units per month. Likewise, cap on consumption of water in terms of litres has also been provided for, the same being 1,16,000 litres for District Judges and 87,000 litres for Chief Judicial Magistrates and other officers. 19. We direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States to personally look into the aforesaid short-comings and 'deficiencies pointed and file their affidavits by 31st August, 2006. I.A. Nos.152. 157 and I.A. No.2 in I.A. No. 157: 20. The interlocutory applications are adjourned. 21. The applications be taken up on the next date of hearing. IA. No. 186: 22. In this application filed by the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers' Association, the grievance made is that suddenly from January, 2006, the State Government has stopped making payment of the difference of the financial burden between the amount of rent of the house taken on rent by the judicial officers and the amount of house rent allowance for which judicial officer is entitled. It is pointed out that judicial officers are entitled to that difference in view of the judgment of this Court dated 10th April, 1995 and Government instructions dated 6th September, 2005 issued, pursuant to the judgment dated 10th April, 1995. It is further pointed out that, probably, it is purported to be done in view of the communication dated 27th January, 2006, sent by the State Government to the Registrar General of the High Court. There cannot be any variation without the leave of the Court. Be that as it may, let the State Government file reply to the application and explain its stand within one week. 23. List the interlocutory application on 1st August, 2006. I.A. Nos. 161 & 169: 24. These applications are adjourned, to be taken up on the next date of hearing. Contempt Petition (C) No.D17733/2006: 25. The Kerala Government, while filing reply, will also meet with what has been stated as disobedience in the Contempt Petition. I. A. No.189: 26. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to move appropriate forum. I.A.Nos.71A & 142 (Benefit to sub-ordinate supporting staff): 27. List these applications for final hearing in the month of September, 2006. 28. It is pointed out that many of the State Governments have still not filed affidavits. Whether the affidavits are filed or not, the hearing of the applications will goon. If the State Governments still wish to file the affidavits, the same must be filed on or before 22nd August, 2006 and if not filed upto that date, the same shall not be taken on record. In other applications: 29. All other applications noted in the order dated 7th February, 2006, and special leave petitions will be taken up with the application in respect of which compliance affidavits have been directed to be filed by 31st August, 2006. 30. In September, 2006, only I.A. Nos. 71 A & 142 will be listed.