1. Implementation of Shetty Commission recommendations regarding service conditions of judicial officers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1643
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
All India Judges Asson. and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
I.A. Nos. 103, 110, 112, 113, 117, 119, 128, 130,, 134-139, 141, 144-147, 152, 154, 157, 159, 160, 161, 165, 166-168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 152, I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 160 and I.A. No. 4 in I.A. No. 142 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 with I.A. Nos. 71A and 142 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989, Cont. Pet. (C) No. 141 of 2003 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989, Cont. Pet. (C) No. 150 of 2003 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989, Cont. Pet. (C) No. 151 of 2003 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989, Cont. Pet. (C) No. ........ of 2003 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989
Decided On : 12-12-2005
The court mandated that the Union and state governments implement a commission report's recommendations on judicial allowances and benefits effective from November 1, 1999, clarifying that the Assured Career Progression scheme is performance-based and domestic help allowance is admissible to retired judicial officers.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Judicial Officers - Pay and Allowances - Implementation of Commission Report - Benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme is not automatic but based on appraisal of work and performance by a committee of senior judges of the higher judiciary; such financial upgradations shall not be provided to those who declined regular promotion on personal grounds (Para 2).
(B) Retired Judicial Officers - Domestic Help Allowance - A monthly allowance for domestic help is admissible to retired judicial officers as per the recommendations of the commission report, and such payment is effective from 1st November, 1999 (Paras 4 and 5).
(C) Subordinate Judiciary - Medical Facilities - Judicial officers are entitled to medical benefits similar to those provided to members of state legislatures; however, a request to modify directions to ensure these do not exceed those of the higher judiciary was rejected due to lack of factual background (Para 3).
(D) Implementation of Court Directions - All state governments and union territories are directed to implement recommendations regarding allowances and benefits enumerated in the relevant report with effect from 1st November, 1999, and must release all such payments immediately (Para 51).
Facts of the case:
Multiple interlocutory applications and contempt petitions were filed seeking clarification and the implementation of a commission report's recommendations concerning the pay, allowances, and service conditions of the subordinate judiciary. The applicants sought clarity on the Assured Career Progression scheme, medical facilities, and domestic help allowances for retirees, while highlighting the failure of various state governments to fully implement the financial benefits recommended in the report.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the ACP scheme is performance-based and cannot be claimed by those who refused promotion. It confirmed that the domestic help allowance for retired officers is valid and payable from November 1, 1999. Furthermore, the court found that several state governments had not fully complied with previous directions to release allowances and benefits listed in the commission report.
Issues: Whether the Assured Career Progression scheme applies automatically or to those who declined promotion; whether retired judicial officers are entitled to domestic help allowance; and whether the various state governments have complied with the mandates to implement the commission report's recommendations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that financial upgradation under the ACP scheme is intended to resolve stagnation for deserving officers, not for those who avoid promotion. It reaffirmed that recommendations for retired officers' allowances were accepted and must be honored. Regarding general implementation, the court concluded that a comprehensive direction was necessary to ensure all states and union territories release all pending allowances and benefits effective from November 1, 1999, as per the accepted report.
Result: Interlocutory applications were disposed of or dismissed; all state governments and union territories were directed to immediately release all allowances and benefits from 1st November, 1999.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
-
practice and procedure
- implementation of commission recommendations (Para 6, 51, 52)
- contempt proceedings (Para 47, 48, 49)
- interlocutory applications (Para 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
Table of Contents
2. Clarifications sought on ACP scheme, medical facilities, and domestic help allowance for retired officers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. ACP not automatic but on appraisal; medical benefits not higher than HC judges; domestic help allowance recommended. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. Shetty Commission recommendations accepted subject to modifications in the judgment must be implemented by states. (Para 50 , 51 )
5. Directions to implement recommendations, file compliance reports; rejected clarifications on ACP, medical, and domestic help allowance. (Para 6 , 51 , 52 )
6. Is the Assured Career Progression Scheme automatic and confined to districts where judge strength is maintained?
No; the ACP is not automatic but based on performance appraisal by a committee, and is not confined to districts with maintained strength. (Para 2 )
7. Can medical facilities for subordinate judiciary be higher than those for High Court judges?
No; the recommendation provides medical benefits at par with state legislators, not exceeding High Court judges' facilities. (Para 3 )
8. Is domestic help allowance payable to retired judicial officers?
Yes; the recommendation for Rs. 1250 per month domestic help allowance to retired officers was accepted by the court. (Para 4 )
9. Are states required to implement all Shetty Commission recommendations with effect from 1st November 1999?
Yes; states and union territories must release all allowances and benefits enumerated in Chapter 19 with effect from that date. (Para 51 )
JUDGMENT :
In I.A. No. 103:
1. In terms of order dated 9th August, 2002, prayers (ii). (iii) and (v) alone are required to be examined. These prayers read as under:
"(ii) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to clarify that Assured Career Progression Scheme is confined to the districts/ States/Union Territories where the Judge strength is maintained at the present level, and further clarify that the same would not apply to those denied promotion;
(iii) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify its direction in relation to medical facilities that the facilities provided to the subordinate judiciary can not in any event be higher than what the High Court Judges are entitled to;
(v) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify its directions as to paying a Domestic Help Allowance of Rs.1250/- p.m. to the retired judicial officers, and clarify that no allowance would be payable to such retired judicial officers which are not payable to serving officers."
2. In respect of prayer (ii) relating to Assured Career Progression Scheme (A.C.P.), the recommendations are contained in Paragraph 17.9 of the Shetty Commission Report. The recommendations stipulate that the conferment of benefit by way of A.C.P. should not be automatic but on the appraisal of their work and performance by a committee of Senior Judges of the High Court constituted for the purpose. It has been further recommended that these financial upgradations should not be provided to those who have declined regular promotion on any personal ground. Nothing is mentioned in the recommendation about the A.C.P. being confined where Judge strength is-maintained at the present level in any district/State/Union Territory. Though Paragraph (3) of the interlocutory application states that the .justification for an A.C.P, is the premise that inadequacy of posts for the superior grade leads to stagnation of the officers but it has not been stated in the application that in any particular district, State or Union Territory because of creation of further number of posts, the element of stagnation is not there. I n fact, the question sought to be raised is only academic. It is implicit that the benefit under the A.C.P. Scheme comes to those who are deprived of promotion. No clarification has been sought for promotion in a specified time schedule despite their performance being judged good for promotion. Under these circumstances, prayer (ii) cannot be granted at this stage.
3. Regarding prayer (iii), the recommendation contained in Paragraph 19.122 is that the judicial officers in every State be given medical benefits that are provided to the members of the State Legislatures, subject to certain modifications mentioned in the recommendation. No factual background has been mentioned in the application as to how the medical facilities provided on the acceptance of the Report of the Shetty Commission would result in providing higher facilities than what the High Court Judges are entitled to. Accordingly, this prayer also deserves to be rejected.
4. Regarding domestic allowance of Rs.1,250 per month to the retired judicial officers, Paragraph 4(c) of the application is based on the premise that the judgment of this Court in All-India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2002 (4) SCC 247) does not make the said allowance admissible to the retired judicial officers. The application, however, quotes Paragraph (36) of the Judgment above-referred, which deals with allowance of Rs.2500/- per month to be paid to a judicial officer to enable the engagement of a servant. The said paragraph does not deal with the allowance under this Head to be paid to a retired judicial officer. The relevant recommendation is contained in Paragraph 23.18 (wrongly mentioned as 22.18) which states that a cash payment of Rs.1250/- per month be paid as "Domestic Help Allowance" to every retired judicial officer which would be paid upon producing a certificate to that effect. The decision of this Court has neither modified this r
