Supreme Court Of India
V.N. KHARE, CJI., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R.C. LAHOTI. JJ.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS -Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS -Respondents.
IAs Nos. 103. 105. 109. 110. 112-22 •...• 128. 130. 134-44 in WP (C) No. 1022 of 1989 with CP (C) No .... of 2003 in WP (C) No. 1022 of 1989.
CPs (C) Nos. 141. ISO and 151 of 2003. decided on April 8. 2004
Shetty Commission recommendations- Pay scale of Subordinate Judiciary - Implementation of -Affidavits of compliance as regards revised pay scales and arrears of salary from 1-7-1996 filed by the States of Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tripura, Orissa and West Bengal-Directions issued to States to comply with same- Model for payment of pension to retired judicial officers in State of Kerala as contained in order dated 4.2.2004 issued by Government of Kerala adopted as model to be adopted by other States. [Paras 2 to 7]
ORDER
1. We find that the affidavits of compliance as regards revised pay scales and arrears of salary from 1-7-1996 in pursuance of this Courts order dated 15-10-2003 have been filed by the States of Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tripura, Orissa and West Bengal.
2. As regards the State of Madhya Pradesh. the affidavit discloses that e arrears are being paid not w.e.f. 1-7-1996 but from 1-7-2002 which is the date of the judgment by this Court. In our view, the decision taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh is contrary to the judgment of this Court. We. therefore, direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay the arrears to the judicial officers w.e.f. 1-7-1996 and file an affidavit to that effect within a period of one month. Likewise. the State of Bihar shall also file an affidavit.
3. As regards the States of Goa. Tamil Nadu. Rajasthan, Orissa and Gujarat, although formal orders have been passed in regard to the payment of arrears w.e.f. 1-7-1996 but they have not filed the requisite affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Orissa states that the State has filed the affidavit reporting compliance. Office to verify. Learned counsel appearing for other States pray for and are allowed four weeks time to file an affidavit to that effect.
4. Regarding the States of Mizoram. Meghalaya. Nagaiand and Arunachal Pradesh. the matter is deferred.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the States of Chhattisgarh. Punjab. Haryana, Jharkhand. Manipur, Andhra Pradesh. Sikkim, Assam. Uttaranchal. h Kerala and J&K pray for and are allowed one months time to file an affidavit that the orders for payment of arrears w.e.f. 1-7-1996 have been passed and the same shall be paid to the judicial officers.
6. Learned amicus curiae has placed before us a government order dated 4-2-2004 issued by the Government of Karnataka in regard to the payment of pension to the retired judicial officers and suggested that the same model may be adopted by other States. We take this government order on record and expect that all other States may adopt the said model. The States may file their response within a period of two months.
IA No. 142
7. Issue notice to all the States. the Union Territories and the High Courts through their respective Standing Counsel to file their response to the Shelly Commission Report regarding pay scales and service conditions of the subordinate courts staff. The response may be filed within two months.
IA No. 109
8. At present, we are not inclined to entertain the grievances of the applicant Association. IA is rejected.
IA No. 140
9. We are not inclined to entertain this application. If the applicant is aggrieved, he may challenge the same by a separate petition. This IA is d rejected.
10. List on 19-7-2004.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.