2008 Supreme(SC) 1827

2008(8) Supreme 830
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Maharashtra State Judges Association & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
The Registrar General, High Court, High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Anr. — Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 211 of 2007
Decided on : 11-12-2008

Headnote:(a)Judicial Service – There was no specific direction by Supreme Court to integrate the judicial services into a single unified cadre, wherever multiple categories existed – In view of the acceptance of Shetty Commission’s recommendations, caderisation had to be with effect from 1.7.1996 – Contention that it ought to have with effect from 13.11.1991 or 31.3.1994 has no merit. (Para 12)

       (1992)1 SCC 119; (1993)4 SCC 288; (2002)4 SCC 247 – Referred.

       (1988)2 SCC 587; (1989)4 SCC 71 – Distinguished.

       (b)Maharashtra Judicial Service (Seniority) Rules, 2007Rule 4(1), Proviso – Merely because caderisation by integration was required to be done with effect from 1.7.1996, it does not follow that the persons who were appointed between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003 in the higher posts of District Judges/City Civil Court Judges should lose their seniority to persons who were holding lower posts when they were appointed – Seniority of those appointed between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003 has rightly been protected – Validity of the Rules upheld. (Para 14)

       Facts of the case :

       1. Justice Shetty Commission had found that in most of the States and Union Territories, there were three cadres of Judicial Officers with uniform designations. But in a few States, there were different designations and multiple categories. Therefore, the Commission suggested that uniformity be brought about in cadres and designations with uniform jurisdiction. This was also an absolute necessity since Commission proposed to provide uniform pay scales and other emoluments to the Judicial Officers by dividing them into three levels. It also recommended pay scales on that basis to be given effect from 1.7.1996.

       2. When the report of the Shetty Commission was submitted, the sub-ordinate Judiciary in the State of Maharashtra had multiple categories of Judges with different designations. The scales of pay, sources of recruitment and promotional avenues for these posts were also different

       3. In view of the acceptance of Shetty Commission’s recommendation by the Supreme Court and consequential directions, the High Court of Bombay on its administrative side considered the matter in the light of the directions given by the Supreme Court and appointed a four- member Committee of Judges under the Chairmanship of Justice S.H. Kapadia to implement the directions of this Court issued while accepting the Justice Shetty Commission Report. The Committee by its report dated 24.8.2002 accepted that there shall be uniform single cadre of District Judges consisting of District Judges, Joint District Judges and City Civil Court Judges (Category-I), Chief Judge, Small Cause Court (Category-IA), Addl. District Judges and Addl. Chief Judges, Small Cause Court (Category-II). The Committee also recommended that 1.7.1996 should be the date for caderisation.

       4. On challenge to the Justice Kapadia Commission’s report and subsequent directions thereupon by the Supreme Court, the High Court of Bombay on its administrative side considered the matter as per the directions given by Supreme Court and appointed a fresh Committee of three Judges under the Chairmanship of Justice Gokhale.

       5.The Gokhle Committee’s Report did not disturb the constitution of the unified cadre of District Judges recommended by Justice Kapadia Committee. It also reiterated the recommendation of Justice Kapadia Committee that the date of caderisation should be 1.7.1996. But taking note of hardship to certain sections, on account of retrospective caderisation, it suggested a modification to protect the seniority of Judicial Officers who obtained their positions either as City Civil Judges or District Judges by direct appointment or by promotion between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003.

       6. According to the petitioners, the caderisation of the District Judges of various categories should have been with effect from 31.3.1994 and not 01.7.1996

       Finding of the Court :

       Points (i) and (ii) decided against the petitioners. The Rules held to be constitutionally valid.

       Result : Writ petition dismissed.