ORDER : The controversy involved in these writ petitions is more or less the same. These writ petitions concern the service conditions of the Judicial Officers in the State concerning pensionary benefits admissible to them. The challenge is to the Notification G.O. No. FD (Spl) 04 PET 2005 dated 31st March 2006 issued by the State Government for introducing 'New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme' (for short, 'the New Pension Scheme') with effect from 1st April 2006 and the said scheme is made operational from 1st April, 2010. The new pension scheme was made applicable to the employees who joined the government employment on or after 1st April 2006. The scheme provided for employees’ contribution of 10% of the basic pay and dearness allowance (DA) with the matching contribution from the State Government. The Government Order was issued on 29th March 2010 regarding the implementation of the new pension scheme. The new pension scheme is sought to be applied to the Judicial Officers, appointed on or after 1st April 2006. 2. Initially, some of the Judicial Officers of the Karnataka Cadre made an interim application (IA No.287/2012) in Writ Petition No.1022 of 1989 pending before the Apex Court for challenging the applicability of 'the New Pension Scheme' to the Judicial Officers. On 30th March 2012, the Apex Court granted interim relief staying the applicability of the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers. On 1st April 2013, the Apex Court disposed of the said interim application and granted liberty to the Judicial Officers to seek appropriate relief from this Court. Accordingly, the Karnataka State Judicial Officers’ Association and 87 Judicial Officers have filed writ petition No. 44240-327 of 2013 for seeking various relief’s. The first petitioner is an association of the Judicial Officers in the State. It is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The first relief claimed is for issuing a writ of mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents to clarify that the Notification G.O. No. FD (Spl) 04 PET 2005 dated 31st March 2006 is not applicable to the Judicial Officers who are appointed after 1st April 2006. A prayer is also made for quashing the subsequent GO. No.'FP (Spl) 28 Pen 2009 dated 29th March 2010 on the basis of which, recovery 10% contribution from the salary of the Judicial Officers was ordered by way of contribution to the new pension scheme. A prayer is also made for quashing the subsequent GO. No.'FP (Spl) 28 Pen 2009 dated 29th March 2010 on the basis of which, recovery 10% contribution from the salary of the Judicial Officers was ordered by way of contribution to the new pension scheme. A writ of mandamus is also sought for directing the State of Karnataka to continue with the old pension scheme which was applicable till 1st April, 2006. 3. Writ Petition No. 58571 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioners who are the legal representatives (widow and children) of a Judicial Officer who was serving as a District Judge in Karnataka State Judiciary. He was appointed as such in the year 2008, who died in a road traffic accident on 14th May 2014. The case of the petitioners is that they are entitled to family pension as per the Government Order dated 30th September 2010. It was pointed out that the relief of family pension has been denied to the petitioners by the State Government by contending that the Judicial Officers appointed after 1st April, 2006 are governed by 'the New Pension Scheme'. The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing the Government Order bearing No.FD.03. SRA 2010, dated 12th January 2010. A prayer is also made for a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to continue the family pension benefits as per the Government Order dated 30th September 2010. It is pointed out that though an opinion was expressed by the Committee of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court to the effect that 'the New Pension Scheme' is not applicable to the Judicial Officers, steps were taken by the Government to recover the contribution. 4. Writ Petition Nos. 24385 of 2013 and other connected writ petitions have been filed by 111 Judicial Officers seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to clarify that the Government Order bearing No.FD (Spl) 04 PET 2005 dated 31st March 2006 has no application insofar as it relates to the members of the Judiciary are concerned. The second prayer in the said writ petition was for quashing the Government Order bearing No. FP (Spl) 28 Pen 2009 dated 29th March 2010. A prayer was also made seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to continue with the old pension scheme with respect to Judicial Officers. The second prayer in the said writ petition was for quashing the Government Order bearing No. FP (Spl) 28 Pen 2009 dated 29th March 2010. A prayer was also made seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to continue with the old pension scheme with respect to Judicial Officers. In this writ petition (24385/2013), an interim order was granted on 24th June 2013, staying recovery of the amount equivalent to 10% of the basic salary and dearness allowance from the salary of the Judicial Officers. 5. In Writ petition No. 24385/2013 and other connected writ petitions, statement of objections have been filed by the State Government in which, reliance was placed on the provisions of the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004. It is submitted that the Karnataka Civil Services Rules which are deemed to have been made under the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978, govern the pension payable to the government servants. It is submitted that except to the extent of the recommendations of the first and second Judicial Pay Commissions, the Judicial Officers are government servants. It is submitted that the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 were made under Article 309 read with 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India and therefore, all the Judicial Officers are civil servants. The main features of the new pension scheme were set out in the objections. It is submitted that the decision to apply the new pension scheme is a policy decision of the Government. It is pointed out that the Government Order dated 31st March 2006 making applicable the new pension scheme was very much in existence when the appointments were made to the post of the Judicial Officers on or after 1st April 2006. The Judicial Officers being the Government servants, they are governed by the new pension scheme. It was further submitted that there was no merit in the writ petition. 6. The High Court administration also filed a statement of objections supporting the cause of the Judicial Officers and it was submitted that the action of the State Government in applying the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers is contrary to various directions issued by the Apex Court from time to time. 7. 6. The High Court administration also filed a statement of objections supporting the cause of the Judicial Officers and it was submitted that the action of the State Government in applying the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers is contrary to various directions issued by the Apex Court from time to time. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken us through the recommendations made by the First National Judicial Pay Commission (popularly known as Justice Shetty Commission) as well as the recommendations made by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (popularly known as Justice Padmanabhan Commission). The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that separate pay Commissions were established to consider and recommend the pay and allowances payable to the Judicial Officers and the recommendations made by both the Commissions were accepted by the Apex Court by issuing necessary directions to all the State Governments to implement the same. The submission, in short, is that the pay of the Judicial Officers is governed by the Orders of the Apex Court accepting both the reports with modifications and therefore, the act of applying the new pension scheme which requires 10% deduction from the salary of the Judicial Officers is completely in gross violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court. Moreover, by erroneously equating the services of the Judicial Officers with that of civil servants, the new pension scheme was applied to the Judicial Officers by the State Government. It is also pointed out that the payment of pension to the Judicial Officers is strictly governed by the Judicial Pay Commissions’ recommendations and therefore, introducing the new pension scheme and applying the same to the Judicial Officers is contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court and it is completely illegal. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed on the various decisions of the Apex Court. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General opposed the writ petitions. His contention is that as far as the payment of pension is concerned, the Judicial Officers are equivalent to the Government Servants except to an extent of certain modifications made by the first and second National Judicial Pay Commissions. He submitted that the recommendations of the second National Judicial Pay Commission were made after introduction of the new pension scheme by the State Government. He submitted that the recommendations of the second National Judicial Pay Commission were made after introduction of the new pension scheme by the State Government. However, the Pay Commissions report is silent about the applicability of the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers. His submission is that as the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 were made in exercise of powers under Article 309 read with 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India, the Judicial Officers are civil servants. He submitted that in the said Rules 2004, the word ‘service’ has been defined as ‘Karnataka State Judicial Services’ and, therefore, all the rules regulating conditions of service of the members of the State Civil Service are applicable to the Judicial Officers as well. He pointed out that the new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced by the Central Government after considering the reports from the experts and in terms of the said scheme, the State of Karnataka has framed the new pension scheme. He submitted that in the terms of reference incorporated in the order of the Apex Court, under which, the First National Judicial Pay Commission was constituted, the mode of payment of pension was not a part. He submitted that under the new pension scheme, contribution of 10% is deducted from the salaries of the Officers and the same amount is being contributed by the Government as well. He submitted that the order dated 30th September 2010 passed by the Government is in terms of the directions of the Apex Court, accepting the report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. He would, therefore, submit that there is no merit in these writ petitions. 9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made across the Bar. The primary argument of the State Government is that the Judicial Service is also a civil service. The Apex Court, in its decision in the case of All India Judges’ Association and others -vs- Union of India and others, (1992) 1 SCC 119 issued various directions including a direction that as and when the Pay Commissions/Committees are set up in the States and Union territories, the question of appropriate pay scales of judicial officers be specifically referred and considered. Various other directions regarding the perquisites to the Judicial Officers were also issued by the said judgment. Various other directions regarding the perquisites to the Judicial Officers were also issued by the said judgment. A review of the said directions was sought by the Union of India and various other State Governments. The review petition was decided by the Apex Court on 24th August 1993, (1993) 4 SCC 288 . In the said review petition, an argument was that the power to regulate the conditions of service of the Judicial Officers vests with the Executive which is subject to Legislative control. Reliance was placed by the review petitioners on Article 309 of the Constitution of India by pointing out that the matters concerning the appointments, promotions and terms and conditions of the service of the Judicial Officers are to be decided by the State Government/Union territories subject to such laws, as may be passed by the Legislature/Parliament. The said contentions raised by the review petitioner were rejected by the Apex Court. The dictum of the Apex Court in paragraph 7 and 8 of the said decision reads thus: “7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under review while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help observing that the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service and the other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners to the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense of 'employment'. The Judges are not employees. As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the members of the council of ministers and the members of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars of the State, what is intended to be conveyed is that three essential functions of the State are entrusted to three organs of the State and each one of them in turn represents the authority of the State. However, those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. However, those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The council of ministers or the political executive is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly, the Legislators are different from the legislative staff. So also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and not between the Judges and the administrative executive. In some democracies like the USA, members of some State judiciaries are elected as much as the members of the legislature and the heads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on a par with the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally. 8. This distinction between the Judges and the members of the other services has to be constantly kept in mind for yet another important reason. Judicial independence cannot be secured by making mere solemn proclamations about it. It has to be secured both in substance and in practice. It is trite to say that those who are in want cannot be free. Self-reliance is the foundation of independence. The society has a stake in ensuring the independence of the judiciary, and no price is too heavy to secure it. To keep the Judges in want of essential accouterments and thus to impede them in the proper discharge of their duties, is to impair and whittle away justice itself". (Underline supplied) The argument of the review petitioners based on the applicability of Article 309 of the Constitution of India were also dealt with by the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the said decision which read thus: "10. This leaves us with the contention of the review petitioners that by the directions in question, this Court has encroached upon the powers of the executive and the legislature under Article 309 to prescribe the service conditions for the members of the Judicial Service. This leaves us with the contention of the review petitioners that by the directions in question, this Court has encroached upon the powers of the executive and the legislature under Article 309 to prescribe the service conditions for the members of the Judicial Service. In view of the separation of the powers under the Constitution, and the need to maintain the independence of the judiciary to protect and promote democracy and the rule of law, it would have been ideal if the most dominant power of the executive and the legislature over the judiciary, viz., that of determining its service conditions had been subjected to some desirable checks and balances. This is so even if ultimately, the service conditions of the judiciary have to be incorporated in and declared by the legislative enactments. But the mere fact that Article 309 gives power to the executive and the legislature to prescribe the service conditions of the judiciary, does not mean that the judiciary should have no say in the matter. It would be against the spirit of the Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in that behalf, for theoretically it would not be impossible for the executive or the legislature to turn and twist the tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a consequence would be against one of the seminal mandates of the Constitution, namely, to maintain the independence of the judiciary". (Underline supplied) In paragraph 11 of the above Judgment, the Apex Court directed that the service conditions of the Judicial Officers should be laid down and reviewed from time to time by an independent Commission exclusively constituted for the purpose. That is how, the First National Judicial Pay Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice Jagannatha Shetty was appointed by the Government on 21st March 1996. One of the terms in the terms of reference, as quoted in paragraph 5 of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of All India Judges' Association and others -vs- Union of India and others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 reads thus: "5. One of the terms in the terms of reference, as quoted in paragraph 5 of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of All India Judges' Association and others -vs- Union of India and others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 reads thus: "5. Xxxx (b) To examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions of service of judicial officers in the State/UTs taking into account the total packet of benefits available to them and make suitable recommendations having regard, among other relevant factors, to the existing relativities in the pay structure between the officers belonging to the Subordinate Judicial Service vis-àvis other civil servants". (Underline supplied) 10. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the First National Judicial Pay Commission headed by Justice Shetty which also made recommendations regarding the pensionary benefits. Paragraph 22.63 of the report deals with pensionary benefits to the Judicial Officers. Accordingly, by its order dated 21st March 2002, the Apex Court accepted the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission and directed implementation thereof by all the States and Union territories. 11. By an order dated 28th April 2009 passed by the Apex Court, in the case of All India Judges Association and others -vs- Union of India and others, (2011) 12 SCC 677 the Apex Court appointed Second Judicial Commission headed by Justice Padmanabhan. In paragraph 6 of the said order, the Apex Court specifically directed that: "6. Xxxx the Commission is also requested to make recommendations in respect of the pension of judicial officers and submit a report as aforesaid". (Underline supplied) Accordingly, a report was submitted by the said Commission making various recommendations including the recommendations regarding the quantum of pension payable to the judicial officers. It had recommended for continuation of the pension fixed by the First National Judicial Pay Commission at the rate of 50% of the average emoluments drawn during the 10 months preceding the age of superannuation. In clause (a) of paragraph 33, a recommendation was made to slash the qualifying years of service from existing 33 years to 20 years for entitlement to receive full pension. Paragraph 34 (b) of the recommendations lays down that the earlier recommendations made by the First National Judicial Pay Commission headed by Justice Shetty will be continued subject to certain modification with respect to qualifying years of service for earning full pension. Paragraph 34 (b) of the recommendations lays down that the earlier recommendations made by the First National Judicial Pay Commission headed by Justice Shetty will be continued subject to certain modification with respect to qualifying years of service for earning full pension. In paragraph 35 (b), a formula was laid down for computing the pension including family pension payable to the judicial officers. The said recommendations of the Second Judicial Pay Commission headed by Justice Padmanabhan were accepted by the Apex Court by the order dated 26th July 2010 passed in the case of All India Judges Association and others -vs- Union of India and others, (2010) 14 SCC 713 . 12. Paragraph 2 of the said order notes/records that Justice Padmanabhan Commission has recommended continuation of certain recommendations made by Justice Shetty Commission. The Apex Court, after perusing those recommendations, issued directions based on the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Commission. It is necessary to refer to paragraphs 7, 8 & 10 of the said judgment of the Apex Court which read thus: "7. We further accept the Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee in which, vide Para 34 (b), it has been stated that with respect to quantum of pension and its calculation, the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission will continue subject to a modification with respect to qualifying years of service for earning full pension, which shall be twenty years, as directed above, instead of thirty years. It is further clarified that as far as computation of pension is concerned, it shall be computed at fifty percent of the last pay drawn. 8. As far as additional quantum of pension is concerned, direction has been sought vide Para 35 (b) of Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report. Accordingly, we direct that additional quantum of pension will be paid to the judicial officers, who have since retired, including family pensioners, in terms of the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report. 8. As far as additional quantum of pension is concerned, direction has been sought vide Para 35 (b) of Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report. Accordingly, we direct that additional quantum of pension will be paid to the judicial officers, who have since retired, including family pensioners, in terms of the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report. In other words, they will be paid according to the chart annexed at p.31 (First Part), which is reproduced herein below: Age of pensioner/family pensioner Additional quantum of pension From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of revised basic pension/family pension From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of revised basic pension/family pension From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of revised basic pension/family pension From 95 years to less than 100 years 50% of revised basic pension/family pension 100 years or more 100% of revised basic pension/family pension 10. We may place on record that, as far as the above directions are concerned, no State has raised any objection". (Underline supplied) 13. The State of Karnataka was also before the Apex Court. Specifically based on the aforesaid order/Judgment of the Apex Court dated 26th July 2010 passed in W.P (C) No.1022 of 1989 and further order dated 2nd August 2010, the Government of Karnataka issued the Order bearing Order No.LAW 147 LAC 2009 dated 30th September 2010. While categorizing the pensioners into three categories, paragraph (iii) of the said Government Order provides for revision of family pension with effect from 1st January 2006. The above provision was made as directed by the Apex Court in paragraph - 8 of the aforesaid Order. As far as the argument of the State Government that the Judicial Officers will have to be treated on par with the government servants is concerned, such contentions were already considered and rejected by the Apex Court. 14. In any event, now the pay and service conditions of the Judicial Officers including the payment of pension are governed by the directions issued by the Apex Court. The order of the Apex Court dated 26th July 2010 (supra), particularly paragraph-2 clearly refers to the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Commission and Justice Shetty Commission regarding pension payable to the Judicial Officers and it clearly records that recommendations made by Justice Shetty Commission as regards pension cannot be modified. The order of the Apex Court dated 26th July 2010 (supra), particularly paragraph-2 clearly refers to the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Commission and Justice Shetty Commission regarding pension payable to the Judicial Officers and it clearly records that recommendations made by Justice Shetty Commission as regards pension cannot be modified. This Order clearly shows that the recommendations of the Shetty Commission which were specifically accepted by the Apex Court included the recommendations regarding pension payable to the Judicial Officers. Further, the Order of the Apex Court dated 26th July 2010 specifically records that no State Government has raised any objection to the direction contained in the said order which accepts the recommendations in the Justice Padmanabhan Commission report, as regards pension and family pension payable to the Judicial Officers. As noted earlier, in paragraph 8, the Apex Court categorically laid down a formula for payment of pension and family pension. Neither Justice Padmanabhan Commission report which was submitted in the year 2009 nor the aforesaid Order of the Apex Court dated 26th July 2010, accepting the recommendations made in the report lay down that a different set of Rules will apply to the pension payable to the Judicial Officers appointed after 1st April 2006. 15. An argument has been canvassed in the objections filed by the State Government that as the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Commission were accepted long after the decision of the State Government of introducing the new pension scheme made applicable to the government servants appointed after 1st April 2006, and as the Apex Court has not said anything about the applicability of the scheme, the same remains unaffected. This contention is fallacious. The State of Karnataka which was before the Apex Court ought to have raised such a contention before the Apex Court. If really the State of Karnataka intended to apply the said new pension scheme even to the Judicial Officers, there was no legal impediment in the way the State Government raising such contention before the Apex Court. On the contrary, the order dated 26th July 2010 which records acceptance of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission including the recommendations in respect of pension, notes that none of the States had any objection for passing the said order. The State Government acted upon the said order by issuing the order dated 30th September 2010. On the contrary, the order dated 26th July 2010 which records acceptance of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission including the recommendations in respect of pension, notes that none of the States had any objection for passing the said order. The State Government acted upon the said order by issuing the order dated 30th September 2010. There is no manner of doubt that even the pension payable to the Judicial Officers will be strictly governed by the recommendations made by both the National Judicial Pay Commissions, as accepted by the Apex Court. Therefore, applying the different yardsticks for payment of pension to the Judicial Officers appointed on or after 1st April 2006 will be directly contrary to and in breach of the directions of the Apex Court. Moreover, the pay/salary of the Judicial Officers has been determined by the Apex Court by accepting the recommendations made by the two Judicial Pay Commissions and by directing the implementation thereof by all the State Governments. The State Government, without seeking permission of the Apex Court, has no power to tinkle with the quantum of the salaries and pension payable to the Judicial Officers. As noted earlier, the new pension scheme contemplates contribution of 10% of the basic salary and dearness allowance by the Judicial Officers and the said amount will be deducted from the salary of the Judicial Officers. Thus, looking from any angle, the act of the State Government in applying the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers of the State appointed after 1st April 2010 and consequential act of making 10% deductions from their salary is not only completely against the recommendations of the two National Judicial Pay Commissions Report but also in breach and gross violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court and hence, the same is illegal. 16. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the State of Maharashtra also introduced a similar pension scheme providing for deduction of 10% from the salary of the Judicial Officers. The said scheme was made applicable to the Judicial Officers of that State appointed on or after 1st November 2005. 16. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the State of Maharashtra also introduced a similar pension scheme providing for deduction of 10% from the salary of the Judicial Officers. The said scheme was made applicable to the Judicial Officers of that State appointed on or after 1st November 2005. The decision of the State Government to apply such new contributory pension scheme to the judicial officers appointed on or after 1st November 2005 which provided for deduction of 10% of the basis salary of the Judicial Officers was challenged before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the said challenge was upheld by the Bombay High Court, in the case of Vihar Durve -vs- The State of Maharashtra and others, 2017 SCC Online Bom 7560/(2017) 7 Bom CR 623. It is necessary to make a reference to paragraphs- 14 and 15 of the said decision which read thus: "14. We have considered the submissions. There is a fallacy in the stand taken by the State Government. In fact, the State Government accepted the recommendations of Padmanabhan Committee appointed under the orders of the Apex Court. The Apex Court by an order dated 26th July 2010 directed that the benefits recommended by the Padmanabhan Committee should be applied with effect from 1st January, 2006. As per the orders of the Apex Court, service conditions of the Judicial Officers in the State including pensionary benefits shall be in terms of recommendations of Padmanabhan Committee which are accepted by the Supreme Court. As far as pensionary benefits to the Judicial Officers are concerned what operates is the Government Resolution dated 5th January, 2011 (as modified on 30th March 2011). Prior to acceptance of the report of the Padmanabhan Committee, the service conditions were governed by the Report of Justice Shetty Commission as modified by the Apex Court. The recommendations as amended by the order of the Apex Court were in operation. Therefore, when the impugned Government Resolution was issued, the order of the Apex Court directing that service conditions of the Judicial Officers shall be governed by the Shetty Commission Report was in force. Therefore, the action of applying the impugned Government Resolution to the Judicial Officers is completely contrary to the directions of the Apex Court. Therefore, when the impugned Government Resolution was issued, the order of the Apex Court directing that service conditions of the Judicial Officers shall be governed by the Shetty Commission Report was in force. Therefore, the action of applying the impugned Government Resolution to the Judicial Officers is completely contrary to the directions of the Apex Court. In fact, the impugned Government Resolution is not at all applicable to the Judicial Officers who are appointed from 1st November, 2005. The terms and conditions of service of Judicial Officers including the grant of pensionary benefits are governed by the directions of the Apex Court. Therefore, even if the letters of appointment issued to the Judicial Officers appointed after 1st January, 2005 contain a clause that the pension will be governed by the impugned Government Resolution, the same will not be binding on the Judicial Officers. 15. As per the New Scheme introduced by the impugned Government Resolution, a government servant is required to make contribution equivalent to 10% of his basic salary plus dearness pay and the said amount will be deducted from his salary. The salary payable to the Judicial Officers is determined firstly by recommendations of Shetty Commission and secondly by recommendations of Padmanaban Committee as accepted by the Apex Court. The State Government cannot affect the quantum of salary of Judicial Officers in this fashion by providing for a deduction of 10% of basic salary plus dearness pay from the salary of a Judicial Officer. The orders of the Apex Court do not permit such a deduction to be made. Making of such deduction from the salary of a Judicial Officer will be a breach of the orders of the Apex Court." (Underline supplied) 17. Therefore, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court and the decision of the Bombay High Court referred supra and for the reasons recorded above, we are inclined to hold that the Government Order bearing No.FD (SPL) 04 PET 2005, dated 31st March 2006 (Annexure-A in Writ Petition No.44240 of 2013) is not applicable to the Judicial Officers of the Karnataka cadre. Accordingly, the subsequent Government Order bearing No.FP (SPL) 28 PEN 2009 dated 29th March 2010 (Annexure-B in Writ Petition No. 44240 of 2013), laying down guidelines for operation/implementation of the new pension scheme shall not apply to the Judicial Officers. Accordingly, the subsequent Government Order bearing No.FP (SPL) 28 PEN 2009 dated 29th March 2010 (Annexure-B in Writ Petition No. 44240 of 2013), laying down guidelines for operation/implementation of the new pension scheme shall not apply to the Judicial Officers. Therefore, any deductions made from the salary of the Judicial Officers appointed after 1st April 2010 towards their contribution to the new pension scheme will have to be refunded. 18. The petitioner in writ petition No.58571 of 2015 will be entitled to family pension as the deceased Judicial Officer will not be governed by the new pension scheme. The petitioner will be entitled to enhanced family pension as per the Government Order dated 30th September 2010. 19. We may clarify here that it will be always open for the Judicial Officers of the Karnataka cadre to opt for the new pension scheme if they desire to do. Therefore, we dispose of these writ petitions by passing the following: ORDER (i) We hold and declare that the Government Orders bearing No.FD (SPL) 04 PET 2005, dated 31st March, 2006 and the Government Order bearing No.FP (SPL) 28 PEN dated 29th March 2010 are not applicable to the Judicial Officers of the Karnataka cadre; (ii) We restrain the State Government from applying the said the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers without their consent in writing; (iii) Consequently, no deductions from the salaries of the Judicial Officers shall be made on the basis of the aforesaid Government Orders; (iv) The State Government, through its Law and Justice Department, shall call upon all the Judicial Officers who have been appointed on or after 1st April, 2006 to submit their option/consent in writing to opt for ‘the new pension scheme’ as per Government Order dated 31st March 2006. Such option shall be invited within a period of four weeks from today, by granting time to the Judicial Officers to exercise their option by 31st January 2020; (v) In case of Judicial Officers who do not opt for the new pension scheme, the State Government shall refund the amount already deducted from their respective salaries in terms of the Government Order dated 29th March, 2010 read with the Order dated 31st March 2006. Such refund shall be made on or before end of February 2020. Such refund shall be made on or before end of February 2020. Needles to add that such Judicial Officers who have not opted for “the New Pension Scheme” shall be governed by old pension scheme which is applicable to the Judicial Officers appointed prior to 1st April 2006; (vi) In the event of the failure of the Government to make refund of the amounts within the time stipulated above, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the respective deductions were made, till the date of repayment to the concerned Judicial Officers; (vii) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.58571 of 2015, who are the legal representatives (widow and children) of a Judicial Officer who was appointed in the year 2008 and died in a road traffic accident on 14th May 2014, are entitled to the family pension as payable in case of a Judicial Officer appointed to prior to 1st April 2006 in accordance with the Government Order dated 30th September 2010. If the petitioners have not complied with the mandatory procedural formalities, the same shall be got completed from them by 31st December 2019; (viii) The arrears of family pension payable to the petitioners in writ petition No.58571 of 2015 up to 31st January 2020 shall be paid to them on or before 31st January, 2020. If there is a delay in making payment of family pension, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition No.58571 of 2015 till the date of payment. The regular family pension payable to the petitioners from February, 2020 shall be regularly and punctually paid from February, 2020 onwards; (ix) These writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. There shall be no orders as to the costs.