ORDER IA No.5 1. Issue notice. In continuation of the order passed by this Court on 7-4-20101, we pass the following order. 2. Many of the States, for example, the States of A.P., Gujarat, Orissa, Maharashtra and Goa had already submitted that they have no objection with the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the same. The States of U.P., Rajasthan, Orissa submitted that they would implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report with effect from 1-1-2006. 3. Some of the States, especially the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K stated that they have got serious financial constraint and some of the States have already implemented the Sixth Pay Commission and there exists disparity in the recommendations between the 6th Pay Commission and the pay scale suggested by Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which should be avoided. It is submitted that these States would be further financially burdened if present Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations are accepted. They also submitted that they should get assistance from the Union of India for implementation of these recommendations. Their contention is that the pay scales to be paid to the judicial officers would be much higher than what is being paid to other executives of the States. It was, therefore, suggested that so much of increase in pay scale be avoided, which is likely to become an eyesore. 4. The same plea was raised when this Court directed to implement Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. This Court observed in All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India2 which is as follows: (SCC pp. 267-68, paras 22-23) "22. The learned Solicitor General, however, submitted that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the Union of India should bear 50 per cent of the total expense was inconsistent with the constitutional set-up. Had there been an All-India Judicial Service, then the Union of India may have been under an obligation to bear the expense, but as the State Governments. had not agreed to the establishment of the All-India Judicial Service and no legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the Central Government to bear 50 per cent of the expense on the judicial system. had not agreed to the establishment of the All-India Judicial Service and no legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the Central Government to bear 50 per cent of the expense on the judicial system. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the obligation to meet the expenses of the judicial service, except for the Supreme Court and the courts in the Union Territories, was on the State Governments. He contended that when allocation of funds between the Centre and the States takes place the expenses which the States are required to meet in connection with the administration of justice is a factor which is taken into consideration. The provision for devolution of funds from the Union to the States is either by assignment of taxes or distribution of taxes or by grants-in-aid. As and when the need arises, either the Finance Commission or the Union of India allocates more funds to the States. 23. It has not been disputed that at present the entire expense on the administration of justice in the States is incurred by the respective States. It is their responsibility and they discharge the same. Logically, if there is to be any increase in the expenditure on the judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the resources in such a way whereby they can meet the expenditure on the judiciary for discharging their constitutional obligations. Merely because there is an increase in the financial burden as a result of the Shetty Commission Report being accepted, there can be no ground for fastening liability on the Union of India when none exists at present. Accordingly, disagreeing on this point with Justice Shetty Commission recommendations, we direct that the entire expenditure on account of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, as accepted, be borne by the respective States. It is for the States to increase the court fee or to approach the Finance Commission or the Union of India for more allocation of funds. They can also mobilise their resources in order to meet the financial obligation. It is for the States to increase the court fee or to approach the Finance Commission or the Union of India for more allocation of funds. They can also mobilise their resources in order to meet the financial obligation. If such a need arises and the States approach the Financial Commission or the Union of India for allocation of more funds, we have no doubt that such a request shall be favourably considered." For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions as advanced by some of the States cannot be accepted. 5. The States of West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh informed that they have implemented the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. There is some difference of opinion as regards certain allowances payable to the judicial officers, otherwise, they have fully implemented (sic recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. The High Courts of these States should endeavour to iron out the creases and have discussions with the State Governments and should sort out the differences at the earliest. If there is any difficulty, it could be brought to the notice of this Court. 6. Most of the States have contended that they have implemented 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1-1-2006 but in some States they have implemented from 1-4-2010, therefore, they would not be in a position to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee (sic recommendations) with effect from 1-1-2006. We are unable to accept this contention. All the States are hereby directed to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations with effect from 1-1-2006. There should be uniformity and all the States should implement recommendations and shall raise the pay scale from 1-1-2006 and shall pay arrears of salary, if any. However, with an intention to give maximum benefits to the judicial officers, following modalities are worked out, with regard to payment of arrears of pay scales. 60% of the arrears be paid in cash spread over in two financial years and 40% be deposited in the provident fund account forthwith in the respective , account of the judicial officers. 7. We reiterate that if in any State the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are more beneficial to the judicial officers, they will continue to be benefited to that extent. The State of Andhra Pradesh has already issued a notification accepting the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee Report. 7. We reiterate that if in any State the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are more beneficial to the judicial officers, they will continue to be benefited to that extent. The State of Andhra Pradesh has already issued a notification accepting the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee Report. We make the A.P. Government's Orders dated 1-5-2010, as a part of this order (marked as Annexure A) so that the same could be followed by other States also. 8. The Secretaries/Law Secretaries/Registrars/Registrar Generals of all the States/High Courts are present in this Court and their presence is dispensed with. Consequently, the IAS in respect of their presence are disposed of. We highly appreciate the cooperation rendered by these officers during the course of hearing. 9. Justice Padmanabhan Committee has made some recommendations regarding allowances. The respective States/High Courts are directed to submit their objections, if any, positively within eight weeks. This is, of course, in case they are not able to sort out the differences themselves. 10. List after eight weeks for directions regarding allowances and pensions. Annexure A: A.P. Government Notification dated 1-5-2001 accepting recommendations of Padmanabhan Committee Report, and made a part of this order of the Supreme Court vide para 7, above. 11. "GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Abstract Public Services-Directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 7-4-2010 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India1-Recommendations of one-man Commission headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.- Revision of pay scales in respect of Andhra Pradesh Judicial Officers w.e.f.1-1- 2006--0rders-Issued. LAW (LA & J-SC.F) DEPARTMENT GOMs No.73 Dated: 1-5-20/0 Read the following 1. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28-4-2009 III All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India3. 2. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges Assn. (3) v. Union of India2, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 . 3. Report of First National Judicial Pay Commission-Headed by Hon'ble Mr Justice K. Jagannadha Shetty-in November 1999. . 4. Report submitted on 17-7-2009 by one-man Commission headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.) to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on determination of salary, pension, etc. to judicial officers and pensioners. 5. GOMs No. 60 Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department, dt. 7-5-2003. 6. GOMs No. III Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department, dt. 21-8-2007. 7. GOMs No. 120 Law (LW & J Courts.Cl) Department, dt. 9-11-2004. 8. to judicial officers and pensioners. 5. GOMs No. 60 Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department, dt. 7-5-2003. 6. GOMs No. III Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department, dt. 21-8-2007. 7. GOMs No. 120 Law (LW & J Courts.Cl) Department, dt. 9-11-2004. 8. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7-4-2010 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of Indial. * * * ORDER The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 28-4-20093 vide reference first read above appointed one-man Commission headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.) to determine the pay scales of all the judicial officers working and retired throughout the country on the basis of the First National Judicial Pay Commission. The Commission submitted its report on 17-7-2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reference fourth read above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions to the Government for implementation of Justice E. Padmanabhan Commission Report under reference eighth read above. 2. The Government, in pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide reference eighth read above and in obedience thereof hereby accord sanction to implement the recommendations of Justice E. Padmanabhan Commission and accordingly order the following on the revised pay scales and fixation in the revised pay scales in respect of judicial officers of the State of Andhra Pradesh: (a) Higher pay scales (i) The revised master scale with effect from 1-1-2006 shall be as under: Rs 27,700-770-33,090-920-40,450-1080-49,090-1230-58,9301380-67,210-1540-76,450. (ii) The revised pay for 1 to 44 stages of master pay scale and increments in the revised pay scale as on 1-1-2006 shall be as under: (iii) The revised scales of pay of the posts as on 1-1-2006 shall be under: (b) Date of effect The revised pay scales shall come into force with effect from 1-1-2006. The salary in the revised pay scales shall be paid in cash for the month of May 2010 payable in June 2010. The salary in the revised pay scales shall be paid in cash for the month of May 2010 payable in June 2010. (c) Fitment in the revised pay scales (i) The pay of judicial officers in the revised pay scales shall be fixed as under: The existing pay of the judicial officer as on 1-1-2006 shall he revised and fixed in the revised scales of pay at the corresponding Stages 1 to 44 in the master pay scale as shown in Table I. There shall not be any fitment or fixation of pay by granting an) increment or additional weightage while fixing the pay as above in the revised pay scale. (ii) The next increment of a judicial officer, whose pay in the revised pay scales is fixed with effect from 1-1-2006 as above, shall be on the date on which he would have drawn his increment had he continued in the existing scale of pay. . (d) Dearness allowance/HRA/CCA Orders in respect of DA/HRA and CCA will be issued separately. (e) Payment of arrears (i) The arrears of salary including differential amounts of dearness allowances, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowances from 1-1-2006 to 30-4-2010 shall be credited to the respective general provident fund accounts of the judicial officers. In respect of those judicial officers who do not have general provident fund accounts, the arrears shall be credited to the compulsory saving fund. The arrears of salary in respect of judicial officers who retired after 1-1-2006 shall be paid in cash. (ii) The drawing and disbursing officers concerned are directed to credit the arrears to the general provident fund accounts/compulsory saving fund after deducting the income tax payable on the arrears. (f) Assured Career Progression Scheme The Assured Career Progression Scheme sanctioned by the First National Judicial Pay Commission and implemented by the Government in the orders seventh read above shall be continued. The assured career progression scales are revised as mentioned below in Table III with effect from 1-1-2006: 3. This order issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their UO No.12555-NI58/Al/PC.I/2010, dated 1-5-2010. 4. This order is available on the internet and can be accessed at the address (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) R. Ramachandra Reddy, Secretary to Government."