VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission pertaining to working conditions of the members of Subordinate Judiciary throughout the country have been accepted by Apex Court subject to various modifications suggested in this judgment.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Article 32—Writ petition pertaining to the working conditions of the members of the subordinate judiciary throughout the country—Recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission (Para 10)—Whether the recommendations of the Shetty Commission laying down different scales of pay should be accepted or not.
       Held : From the aforesaid, it is clear, and it is so mentioned in the Shetty Commission Report, that the said Commission has taken into consideration the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission while determining the pay scales for the Judicial Officers. In our opinion, the pay scales recommended by the Shetty Commission are just and reasonable. Considering the years of service put in by the Judicial Officers at different stages, the parity in the scales of pay recommended by the Shetty Commission for the Judicial Officers with the scales of pay of I.A.S. Officers is not, by and large, disturbed. In fact, the scales of pay recommended by the Shetty Commission appear to us to be somewhat lower, on the average, than the scales of pay recommended for an I.A.S. officer if we take into consideration, as we must do, the number of years a Judicial Officer has put in service. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the pay scales recommended by the Shetty Commission should be accepted. We wish to emphasise that even though in the earlier judgments, it has rightly been said that there should be no equation or parity between the Judicial Service and the Executive Service, nevertheless even on the basis that there should not be great distortion in the pay scales of the Judicial Officers vis-a-vis the Executive, we find the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission as just, fair and reasonable. (Para 21)
       (ii) Shetty Commission—Revision of pay scale of Subordinate Judiciary—Whether Shetty Commission was justified in recommending that 50 of the expense should be borne by Central Government?
       Held : 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 Judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the resources in such a way whereby they can meet expenditure on 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, 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. If such a need arises and the States approach the Finance Commission or the Union of India for allocation of more funds, we have no doubt that such a request shall be favourably considered. (Para 23)
       (iii) Huge backlog of undecided cases in subordinate judiciary recommendation to increase Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people as recommended by 120th Law Commission Report—Directions issued.
       Held : An independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structures of our Constitution. If sufficient number of judges are not appointed, justice would not be available to the people, thereby undermining the basic structure. It is well known that justice delayed is justice denied. Time and again the inadequacy in the number of judges has adversely been commented upon. Not only have the Law Commission and the Standing Committee of Parliament made observations in this regard, but even the Head of the Judiciary, namely, the Chief Justice of India has had more occasions than once to make observations in regard thereto. Under the circumstances, we feel it is our constitutional obligation to ensure that the backlog of the cases is decreased and efforts are made to increase the disposal of cases. Apart from the steps which may be necessary for increasing the efficiency of the Judicial Officers, we are of the opinion that time has now come for protecting one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakhs people to 50 judges of 10 lakh people. We are conscious of the fact that overnight these vacancies cannot be filled. In order to have additional judges, not only will the posts have to be created but infrastructure required in the form of additional court rooms, buildings, staff, etc., would also have to be made available. We are also aware of the fact that a large number of vacancies as of today from amongst the sanctioned strength remain to be filled. We, therefore, first direct that the existing vacancies in the Subordinate Courts at all levels should be filled, if possible latest by 31st March, 2003, in all the States. The increase in the Judge strength to 50 judges per 10 lakh people should be effected and implemented with the filling up of the posts in a phased manner to be determined and directed by the Union Ministry of Law, but this process should be completed and the increased vacancies and posts filled within a period of five years from today. Perhaps increasing the judge strength by 10 per 10 lakh people every year could be one of the methods which may be adopted thereby completing the first stage within five years before embarking on further increase if necessary. (Para 25)
       (iv) Increase in retirement age of subordinate judiciary from 60 to 62 by Shetty Commission—Held not possible —Instead re-employment of the retiring Judicial Officers till the age of 62 if there are vacancies, suggested. (Para 26)
       (v) Method of Recruitment to the Posts in Higher Judicial Service viz. District Judges and ADJ’s—Distinction between recruitment and promotion—Directions given.
       Held : As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be:
       (1) (a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test;
       (b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years’ qualifying service; and
       (c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted by respective High Courts.
       (2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High Courts as early as possible. (Para 28)
       (vi) Discontentment amongst the members of the Higher Judicial Service in regard to their seniority in service—The no-point roster principle suggested to be implemented as early as possible (Para 29)—Disapproval of weightage system in matter of promotion to Higher Judicial Service in determining seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits and promotees. (Para 30)
       (vii) Recommendation of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to be in cadre of District Judges—Disapproved by Apex Court cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) suggested. (Para 31)
       (viii) Need of training to fresh recruits into the Judicial Service (See Para 32).
       (ix) Change of nomenclature with the change of pay scale (See Paras 33 to 34)—HRA to judicial officer (See Para 35)—Other allowances (See Para 36)—Result—Amendment in Service Rules—Date of compliance—Provision for classification.
       Held : Subject to the various modifications in this Judgment, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted. We are aware that it will become necessary for service and other rules to be amended so as to implement this judgment. Firstly, with regard to the pay scales, the Shetty Commission has approved the pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1996 but has directed the same to be paid with effect from 1st July, 1996. The pay scales as so approved by us are with effect from 1st July, 1996. However, it will take some time for the States to make necessary financial arrangements for the implementation of the revised pay scales. The Judicial Officers shall be paid the salary in the revised pay scales as approved by this Court with effect from 1st July, 2002. The arrears of salary between 1st July, 1996 to 30th June, 2002, will either be paid in cash or the States may make the payment by crediting the same in the Provident Fund Account of the respective Judicial Officers. Furthermore, the payment by credit or otherwise should be spread over between the years 1st July, 1996 to 30th June, 2002 so as to minimise the income-tax liability which may be payable thereon. In calculating the arrears, the Government will, of course, take into account the interim relief which had been granted and drawn by the Judicial Officers. The amount to be credited in the Provident Fund Account would also be after deducting the income tax payable. The States as well as the Union of India shall submit their compliance report by 30th September, 2002. Case be listed thereafter for further orders. Any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other Court shall entertain them. (Paras 37 to 40)

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.—This Writ Petition pertains to the working conditions of the members of the Subordinate Judiciary throughout the country. This is the third round before this Court.

2. In a decision reported in 1992(1) SCC 119 entitled All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India & Ors., directions were given by this Court in regard to the working conditions and some benefits which should be given to the members of the Subordinate Judiciary. The directions were as follows:

“63. We would now briefly indicate the directions we have given in the judgment:

(i) An All India Judicial Service should be set up and the Union of India should take appropriate steps in this regard.

(ii) Steps should be taken to bring about uniformity in designations of officers both in civil and the criminal side by March 31, 1993.

(iii) Retirement age of judicial officers be raised to 60 years and appropriate steps are to be taken by December 31, 1992.

(iv) 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.

(v) A working library at the residence of every judicial officer has to be provided by June 30, 1992. Provision for sumptuary allowance as stated has to be made.

(vi) Residential accommodation to every judicial officer has to be provided and until State accommodation is available, government should provide requisitioned accommodation for them in the manner indicated by December 31, 1992. In providing residential accommodation, availability of an office room should be kept in view.

(vii) Every District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate should have a State vehicle, judicial officers in sets of five should have a pool vehicle and others would be entitled to suitable loans to acquire two wheeler automobiles within different time limits as specified.

(viii) In-service Institute should be set up within one year at the Central and State or Union Territory level.

3. A number of directions which were given have been implemented. The Union of India, however, filed a review petition seeking certain modifications/clarifications. This review petition was disposed of by the judgment reported in 1993 (4) SCC 288 entitled All India Judges’ Association & Ors. etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. etc. The relevant findings in the said decision are as follows:

(i) Each of the general and special objections of Union of India and States/UTs was dealt with and rejected. The distinction between judicial and other services specifically emphasized. (Paras 7 to 10)

(ii) “The service conditions of Judicial Officers should be laid down and reviewed from time to time by an independent Commission exclusively constituted for the purpose, and the composition of such Commission should reflect adequate representation on behalf of the judiciary” (Para 11).

(iii) “By giving the directions in question, this Court has only called upon the executive and the legislature to implement their imperative duties. The courts do issue directions to the authorities to perform their obligatory duties whenever there is a failure on their part to discharge them... The further directions given, therefore, should not be looked upon as an encroachment on the powers of the executive and the legislature to determine the service conditions of the judiciary. They are directions to perform the long overdue obligatory duties.” (Para 14)

“....The directions are essentially for the evolvement of an appropriate national policy by the Government in regard to the judiciary’s conditions”. The directions issued are mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive national policy is evolved. (Para 15) (emphasis supplied)

(iv) The question of financial burden likely to be imposed is misconceived and should not be raised to discharge mandatory duties:

“16. The contention with regard to the financial burden lik

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 403

VERY IMPORTANT POINTRecommendations of Justice Shetty Commission pertaining to working conditions of the members of Subordinate Judiciary throughout the country have been accepted by Apex Court subject to various modifications suggested in this judgment.

Cases Referred (3)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission pertaining to working conditions of the members of Subordinate Judiciary throughout the country have been accepted by Apex Court subject to various modifications suggested in this judgment.