Back
2006(5) Supreme 782
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakker and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Anil Kumar Vithal Shete & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. — Respondents
IA No. 126
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
With
I.A. Nos. 172, 181, 143, 141 in WP (C) No. 1022 of 1989, I.A. No. 2 in WP (C) No. 258 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 173 of 2004
All Decided on 28-4-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : F.S. Nariman, P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocates, V.B. Joshi, N.P. Bapat, M.V. Kini, Ravi Kini, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anita Shenoy, A.N. Singh, M.N. Shroff, Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : U.U. Lalit, S.K. Dholakia, Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocates, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Ashish Dholakia, U.A. Rana, Arvind Kumar, Advocate, for M/s Gagrat & Co., Mrs. Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. Shomila Bakshi, Ms. Rani, Anirudha P. Mayee, S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, R.S. Lambat, Mukesh K. Giri, S.M. Jadhav, Advocates.
Held : It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to a cadre of Judges of Small Causes Court, Bombay which is an independent, separate and distinct cadre filled up by promotion from Civil Judges (Senior Division) and also by direct recruitment. Their cases were considered by the Administrate Side of the High Court of Bombay and a decision was taken by the Full Court to place them in Category 2 of the judicial hierarchy in the State of Maharashtra. The three categories created in the State of Maharashtra are as under:
Category 1 : District Judges, Joint District Judges, City Civil Court Judges
(iA) :Chief Judge, Small Causes Courts;
(ii) :Additional District Judges, Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Courts
Category 2 : Senior Civil Judges
(i)Chief Metropolitan Magistrates;
(ii)Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates;
(iii)Metropolitan Magistrates and Judges of Small Causes Courts;
(iv)Civil Judges (Senior Division)
Category 3 : Civil Judges (Junior Division) (Para 2)
The grievance of the petitioners is that, though they were holding higher post and forming higher cadre than Civil Judges (Senior Division) and were promoted from the post of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Judges, Small Causes Court, they have been illegally put on par with Civil Judges (Senior Division) virtually reverting to the position of Civil Judges (Senior Division) from which cadre they were promoted to the higher cadre.(Para 3)
It is always open to an employer to adopt a policy for fixing service conditions of his employees. Such policy, however, must be in consonance with the Constitution and should not be arbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise objectionable. When several cadres are sought to be unified in few cadres, e.g. three cadres in the instant case, it is natural that all Judicial Officers have to be placed in one or the other cadre. The said fact itself cannot make the decision vulnerable. The High Court, in our opinion, considered the question in its proper perspective and while creating three cadres and placing Judicial Officers in one of the cadres, took into account the relevant principles. So far as the Judges of Small Causes Courts are concerned, they were placed in Category 2 but considering the fact that it was a promotional post from Civil Judges (Senior Division), all of them were en bloc placed above Civil Judges (Senior Division) in the said Category. We find no infirmity therein. It is also clear that in the State of Maharashtra, the new cadre of District Judges covers three existing cadres (i) District Judges, (ii) Joint District Judges, and (iii) City Civil Court Judges and all of them have been placed senior to other cadres in the same category of Additional District Judges, Chief Judges, Small Causes Court and Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Court. This has been done on the basis that for the District Judge cadre, Additional District Judge cadre is a feeder cadre. The cadre of Additional District Judge is also a feeder cadre for the cadre of Judges of the City Civil Court. Likewise, the cadre of Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court is a feeder cadre for the Judges of City Civil Court. In other words, a person holding the post of Additional District Judge can be promoted as a District Judge or as a City Civil Court Judge. Since all the three cadres were to be merged, the superiority of the District Judges and the Judges of City Civil Court was required to be maintained and is accordingly maintained. But it does not mean that District Judges, Chief Judges, Small Causes Court and Additional District Judges/Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Court cannot be placed in one and the same category. We, therefore, find no illegality in the decision of the Full Court on its Administrative Side which calls for interference.(Para 34)
The matter can be considered from a different angle as well. Under the scheme of our Constitution, High Courts have been invested with the power of superintendence and control over Subordinate Judiciary. Bare reading of Articles 227 and 233 to 237 makes it explicitly clear that the High Courts take care of and exercise control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto. This power of superintendence and control include inter alia to guide, advice and encourage Judges of subordinate courts to exercise their powers, discharge their duties and perform their functions independently, fearlessly and objectively.(Para 35)
In our considered opinion, as caretaker, guardian and custodian of subordinate judiciary, the Full Court of the High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat on Administrative Side have considered the position and status of Judges of Small Causes Courts and in the light of the relevant provisions of the Constitution as interpreted by this Court from time to time have taken decisions to place them in Category 2. To us, keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in various decisions referred to above, it cannot be said that the action impugned by the petitioners of placing them in Category 2 above Civil Judges (Senior Division) is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise objectionable. Since there is no legal flaw in the decisions, they require no interference by this Court.(Para 37)
Consequent notification issued by the Government of Gujarat in the light of the decision of the Full Court of High Court of Gujarat on its Administrative Side also does not suffer from legal infirmity and the said notification cannot be struck down.(Para 38)
The applicant is Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. His grievance is that he ought to have been placed in Category 1 with District Judges and pay fixation ought to have been made on that basis. By not doing so, the State of Gujarat as well as the High Court of Gujarat has committed an error. The Notification dated October 10, 2003 to that extent deserves to be interfered with.(Para 41)
For the reasons which we have already indicated earlier while dealing with the issue of placement of various judicial officers that the action taken by the High Court of Gujarat on its Administrative Side cannot be held illegal or contrary to law applies to the present case as well. We, therefore, see no substance in the application which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.(Para 46)
(ii) Constitution of India — Articles 32, 227, 233 to 247 — Subordinate judiciary — Shetty Commission Report — Implementation of — Metropolitan Magistrates in Mumbai — They prayed that their scales of pay, seniority, chances of promotion and other benefits should be maintained — It was stated that their scales be maintained and fixed on par with that of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates/Addl. District Judges — Whether prayer made by petitioners can be accepted — (No) — Directions made that pay scales of applicants will not be reduced nor recovery be effected in pursuance of decision of the High Court of Bombay on its Administrative Side.(Paras 50 and 51)
(iii) Constitution of India — Articles 32, 227, 233 to 237 — Subordinate judiciary — Assistant Judges in the Judicial Service of Gujarat — Prayer made to place Assistant Judges in the category of District Judges with higher pay scales along with seniority from 1.1.1996 — Prayer made for striking down notifications dated 9-5-2005 and 19.5.2005 — Assistant Judges have been clubbed with Civil Judges (Senior Division) in Category 2 — Whether it can be said that status and position of Assistant Judges had been ignored or overlooked by the respondents by placing them in category 2 — (No) — Proper placement has been made by the Committee by considering relevant provisions of law.
Held : It cannot be said that by placing Assistant Judges in Category 2 above Civil Judges (Senior Division), any illegality has been committed by the High Court of Gujarat on its Administrative Side. A Committee of five Judges was appointed and the said Committee considered the question of placement of Assistant Judges. Keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Constitution, Recruitment Rules and the powers exercised by Assistant Judges, the Committee felt that proper placement of Assistant Judges would be above Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Category 2.(Para 61)
Considering the powers to be exercised, functions to be performed and duties to be discharged by Assistant Judges and keeping in view the provisions of the Constitution as also the relevant provisions of law, the Committee constituted by the High Court of Gujarat considered the question and decided to place Assistant Judges in Category 2 above Civil Judges (Senior Division). It is no doubt true that Assistant Judges are promoted from feeder cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division), but as observed by us hereinabove, while dealing with the placement of Judges of Small Causes Court in Maharashtra and in Gujarat that when all officers are to be placed within few cadres, some officers are required to be placed in one and the same cadre even though they are holding promotional posts. Their placement, however, must be properly done so that they are shown above the feeder cadre from which they have been promoted. This was the position of Judges of Small Causes Court and we have held that such an action cannot be held illegal. We have also considered the relevant cases while dealing with the contentions of Judges of Small Causes Court and negatived them. For the self-same reasons, the grievance of Assistant Judges cannot be upheld and, in our opinion, the prayers cannot be granted.(Paras 64 & 65)
(iv) SERVICE LAW — Constitution of India — Articles 233 to 237 — Subordinate judiciary — Principles relating to integration and unification of different cadres — Shetty Commission Report — Implementation of — Powers of State to lay down any rule appropriate for determining seniority in service — It is not open to the Court to state that in its opinion another rule would be better or more appropriate — ‘Chances of promotion’ is not a ‘condition of service’ — Reduction of chances of promotion would not amount to ‘change in condition of service’.(Paras 26 to 33)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The High Courts have the authority of superintendence and control over subordinate judiciary, which includes guiding, advising, and encouraging judges to exercise their powers independently and fearlessly (!) (!) (!) .
The placement and classification of judicial officers within different cadres must be in accordance with constitutional provisions, relevant laws, and the principles of reasonable, non-arbitrary policy decisions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The decision to categorize Judges of Small Causes Courts in a specific cadre is based on their special status, historical background, jurisdictional functions, and the recommendations of commissions such as the Shetty Commission (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Placement of judicial officers in particular cadres, such as categorizing Judges of Small Causes Courts or Assistant Judges, is a policy matter that involves considerations of their duties, powers, qualifications, and responsibilities. Such decisions are within the domain of the High Courts and are not subject to judicial review unless found to be arbitrary or irrational (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The unification and integration of different judicial cadres into a few broad categories are lawful, provided the principles of natural justice, rationality, and non-arbitrariness are followed. Such integration does not violate constitutional equality principles, especially when based on relevant criteria like nature of duties, powers, qualifications, and salary (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The chances of promotion and seniority are considered administrative policies that do not constitute conditions of service. Therefore, any reduction in promotion prospects resulting from cadre reorganization does not amount to a violation of service conditions (!) (!) (!) .
Judicial officers' status, including their pay scales, seniority, and service benefits, are determined by the High Courts based on their assessment of functions, responsibilities, and legal provisions. Decisions taken by the High Courts on administrative matters are generally upheld unless they are shown to be illegal or irrational (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
When placing officers like Assistant Judges or Judges of Small Causes Courts, the High Courts have exercised their administrative discretion, considering their duties, jurisdiction, and historical context, and such decisions are presumed lawful unless proven otherwise (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The constitutional framework grants High Courts the power to determine the cadre and seniority of judicial officers, and such determinations are to be made with rational criteria, avoiding arbitrariness (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Disputes regarding classification, pay scales, or cadre placement are typically resolved within the administrative domain of the High Courts, and courts generally do not interfere unless there is clear evidence of illegality or irrationality (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal questions.
JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, J. — Interlocutory Application No. 126 of 2003 is filed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989 by the Judges of the Small Causes Court, Bombay for declaration that the action of the Shetty Commission of referring the case of the petitioners to the High Court of Bombay is illegal and improper; to call for records and proceedings of the Full Court of the High Court of Bombay and to set aside the decision taken by the Full Court by directing the High Court to place the petitioners in the same cadre in which Additional Chief Judges of the Court of Small Causes have been proposed to be placed by the Shetty Commission in Category 1.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to a cadre of Judges of Small Causes Court, Bombay which is an independent, separate and distinct cadre filled up by promotion from Civil Judges (Senior Division) and also by direct recruitment. Their cases were considered by the Administrate Side of the High Court of Bombay and a decision was taken by the Full Court to place them in Category 2 of the judicial hierarchy in the State of Maharashtra. The three categories created in the State of Maharashtra are as under:
Category 1 : District Judges, Joint District Judges, City Civil Court Judges
(iA) :Chief Judge, Small Causes Courts;
(ii) :Additional District Judges, Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Courts
Category 2 : Senior Civil Judges
(i)Chief Metropolitan Magistrates;
(ii)Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates;
(iii)Metropolitan Magistrates and Judges of Small Causes Courts;
(iv)Civil Judges (Senior Division)
Category 3 : Civil Judges (Junior Division)
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that, though they were holding higher post and forming higher cadre than Civil Judges (Senior Division) and were promoted from the post of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Judges, Small Causes Court, they have been illegally put on par with Civil Judges (Senior Division) virtually reverting to the position of Civil Judges (Senior Division) from which cadre they were promoted to the higher cadre.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 119, this Court had issued certain directions in regard to the working conditions of Judicial Officers and benefits to be extended to the members of subordinate judiciary. After considering reports submitted by the Law Commission and the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the following directions were issued by this Court;
(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 designation 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.
5. The directions were thus essentially for the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
