ORDER

IA No.5

1. Issue notice. In continuation of the order passed by this Court on 7-4-20101, we pass the following order.

2. Many of the States, for example, the States of A.P., Gujarat, Orissa, Maharashtra and Goa had already submitted that they have no objection with the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the same. The States of U.P., Rajasthan, Orissa submitted that they would implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report with effect from 1-1-2006.

3. Some of the States, especially the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K stated that they have got serious financial constraint and some of the States have already implemented the Sixth Pay Commission and there exists disparity in the recommendations between the 6th Pay Commission and the pay scale suggested by Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which should be avoided. It is submitted that these States would be further financially burdened if present Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations are accepted. They also submitted that they should get assistance from the Union of India for implementation of these recommendations. Their contention is that the pay scales to be paid to the judicial officers would be much higher than what is being paid to other executives of the States. It was, therefore, suggested that so much of increase in pay scale be avoided, which is likely to become an eyesore.

4. The same plea was raised when this Court directed to implement Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. This Court observed in All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India2 which is as follows: (SCC pp. 267-68, paras 22-23) "22. The learned Solicitor General, however, submitted that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the Union of India should bear 50 per cent of the total expense was inconsistent with the constitutional set-up. Had there been an All-India Judicial Service, then the Union of India may have been under an obligation to bear the expense, but as the State Governments. had not agreed to the establishment of the All-India Judicial Service and no legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the Central Government to bear 50 per cent of the expense on the judicial system. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the obligation to meet the expenses of the judicial service, except for the Supreme Court and the courts in the Union Territories, was on the State Governments. He contended that when allocation of funds between the Centre and the States takes place the expenses which the States are required to meet in connection with the administration of justice is a factor which is taken into consideration. The provision for devolution of funds from the Union to the States is either by assignment of taxes or distribution of taxes or by grants-in-aid. As and when the need arises, either the Finance Commission or the Union of India allocates more funds to the States.

23. 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 the judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the resources in such a way whereby they can meet the expenditure on the 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, there 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 a