ORDER IA No.6 in IA No. 244 1. No orders. IA No. 276 and IA No. ... . 2. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the applications with liberty to move the High Court. Permission sought is granted. 3. The IAs are dismissed as withdrawn. In re: recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee 4. This Court had appointed Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, a former Judge of this Court, for revising salary, allowances and perquisites of the judicial officers in various States. The Shetty Commission had filed its report and it was considered in All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India1. In various orders passed by this Court from time to time, the recommendations of the Shetty Commission were accepted and most of the recommendations have been fully implemented by all the States. Thereafter the salary of the High Court Judges was enhanced with effect from 1-1-1996 by order of the Government of India. 5. As per the recommendations of the Shetty Pay Commission, salaries of Civil Judges (Junior Division), Civil Judges (Senior Division), the District Judges (entry level), District Judges (selection grade) and District Judges (super time scale) are required to be increased as and when salary of the High Court Judges is increased. In Para 15.48 of the Report, it has been stated that the percentage of the salary of Civil Judges (Junior Division), Civil Judges (Senior Division), the District Judges (entry level), District Judges (selection grade) and District Judges (super time scale) be 42.3%, 58.5%, 71.6%, 80% and 91.7% respectively to that of the salary of the High Court Judges. 6. Relevant Para 15.48 of the Shetty Pay Commission is reproduced below: "15.48. It may be seen from the aforesaid table and chart that the mean of the basic pay of Civil Judges (Junior Division), Civil Judges (Senior Division), District Judges (entry level), District Judges (selection, grade) and District Judges (super time scale) works out respectively at 42.3%, 58.5%, 71.6%, 80% and 91.7% of the salary of the High Court Judges." 7. As salary of the High Court Judges had been increased, this Court appointed Justice E. Padmanabhan, a retired Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, to go into the question as to what extent salary, allowances and perquisites of the judicial officers of the States can be increased. Justice Padmanabhan Committee has submitted Report suggesting various recommendations. As salary of the High Court Judges had been increased, this Court appointed Justice E. Padmanabhan, a retired Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, to go into the question as to what extent salary, allowances and perquisites of the judicial officers of the States can be increased. Justice Padmanabhan Committee has submitted Report suggesting various recommendations. Copy of the Report was furnished to all the State Governments and High Courts and opportunities were given to them to furnish their objections. Some of the States have filed their objections. 8. The main objection seems to be that some of the States have financial difficulties and it would not be possible for them to increase the salary of the Judges of the subordinate judiciary. It was argued by some of the States that they have implemented the Sixth Central Pay Commission and the scale of pay of the judicial officers had also been correspondingly increased. In these States, rules applicable shall have to be amended to give full effect to the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee. By implementing the Sixth Central Pay Commission, if any of the judicial officers are getting higher salary or perquisites, such State would be at liberty to give higher salary, allowances and perquisites than what has already been recommended by Justice Padmanabhan Committee. 9. The States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa, Rajasthan, Goa and Mizoram have submitted that they have no objection to the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the said recommendations. 10. The Report has to be implemented with effect from 1-1-2006 so that some retired judicial officers be also benefited. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala submitted that in the Padmanabhan Committee Report the percentage of super time scale District Judges has been reduced whereas as per the Kerala Rules, 10% of the cadre strength has to be super time scale District and Sessions Judges and 25% Selection Grade District and Sessions Judges. Steps should be taken accordingly in respect of the super time scale and selection grade District Judges so that no prejudice will be caused to these officers. In re: State of J&K 12. The learned Advocate General, appeared on behalf of the State, raised certain objections regarding recommendations which would be considered on the next date of hearing. Steps should be taken accordingly in respect of the super time scale and selection grade District Judges so that no prejudice will be caused to these officers. In re: State of J&K 12. The learned Advocate General, appeared on behalf of the State, raised certain objections regarding recommendations which would be considered on the next date of hearing. The State is permitted to file a supplementary affidavit to this effect. 13. The Registrar General/Registrar and Secretary (Law) of each High Court/State/Union Territory is directed to be present on the next date of listing of the matter i.e. on 4-5-2010. The Registrar of this Court is directed to inform the aforesaid officers to remain present in this Court with all necessary instructions and details thereof, on the next date of hearing. 14. List the matter on 4-5-2010 as Item 1. WP (C) No. 597 of 2007 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission sought is granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.